Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
133 S. Ct. 2411
SCOTUS2013Background
- UT Austin uses race as a factor within a holistic admission framework aiming for a 'critical mass' of minority students.
- Program history includes pre-Hopwood AI/ race, post-Hopwood PAI, and 2004 race-conscious plan invoked to address minority enrollment declines.
- Hopwood v. Texas prohibited race consideration, prompting adoption of a race-blind PAI and Top Ten Percent Law for automatic admissions.
- Following Grutter (diversity as a compelling interest) and Gratz (invalid automatic race-based points), UT reinstated explicit race consideration in 2004.
- Petitioner, a Caucasian applicant who was denied admission in 2008, sued arguing the plan violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for UT; the Supreme Court vacated and remanded to apply strict scrutiny correctly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UT's race-conscious admissions survive strict scrutiny | Petitioner argues discriminatory use of race fails strict scrutiny | University contends Grutter permits narrowly tailored race consideration | Remanded for proper strict scrutiny application |
| Is the asserted diversity/educational-benefits interest compelling | Diversity benefits are not a compelling interest | Diversity yields educational benefits that justify race consideration | Court requires rigorous demonstration of compelling interest and narrow tailoring |
| Whether the admissions process is narrowly tailored | Process relies on race as a defining feature | Process considers race among factors with some flexibility | Remand for closer examination of race-neutral alternatives and tailoring |
| Whether the Court of Appeals applied the correct standard of review | Appeals court gave deference to good faith and tailoring | Appeals court should apply strict scrutiny, not defer to good faith alone | Judgment vacated; remanded to apply strict scrutiny properly |
| Whether the race-conscious plan is permissible under existing precedents | Grutter should be overruled; Grutter’s deferential stance inappropriate | Precedents support deferential review of academic judgments | Court does not overrule Grutter; remands for proper analysis under strict scrutiny |
Key Cases Cited
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1978) (strict scrutiny; diversity as a goal must be narrowly tailored; no racial quotas)
- Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (U.S. 2003) (diversity can be a compelling interest but must be narrowly tailored)
- Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (U.S. 2003) (invalidates automatic race-based point system; requires individualized consideration)
- Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1995) (strict scrutiny applies to all racial classifications, strict but not fatal in fact)
- Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1989) (remedial diversity must be narrowly tailored; strong evidence required)
- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1954) (segregation invalid; equality in education)