Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, schools are prohibited from using race-based affirmative action in admissions decisions.

Harvard College and University of North Carolina (UNC)’s admissions programs involved a multi-step process that at one point broke down the applicants by race to ensure that there was not a “dramatic drop-off” in minority admissions. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) brought separate suits against each university alleging that their race-based admissions programs violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. At the district level, the court found that the admissions program fit within the Court’s precedent and SFFA appealed. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, schools are prohibited from using race-based affirmative action in admissions decisions. Any exception to the Equal Protection Clause must survive strict scrutiny, which requires furthering a compelling governmental interest and that the use of race is narrowly tailored to achieving that interest. In Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 326 (2003), the Court determined that student body diversity is a compelling interest that could justify the use of race in university admissions, established restrictions for race-based admissions, and stressed the importance of a “termination point” that still had not come 20 years later. “Classifying and assigning” students based on their race “requires more than an amorphous end to justify it.” Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 735 (2007). The Court found that Harvard and UNC failed to meet that burden. They determined that the categorization of the admissions program was both overbroad and underinclusive, which served to undermine the goals of a diverse student body rather than promote them. REVERSED.