What are the facts?
Abigail Fisher applied to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 and was denied admission. The university’s admission policy included a 'Top Ten Percent Plan,' which guaranteed admission to Texas students in the top ten percent of their high school class. For students not admitted under this plan, including Fisher, the university considered several factors, including race, as part of its holistic admissions process. Fisher, a white applicant, argued that the use of race in this manner violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was heard by the Supreme Court twice, first in 2013 (Fisher I) and again in 2016 (Fisher II), with the latter resulting in the Court upholding the University of Texas’s admissions policy.
What is the legal issue?
Does the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race in its admissions process violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
What rule applies?
Under the Equal Protection Clause, government programs that classify individuals based on race must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest and can only survive if they pass strict scrutiny.
What did the court hold?
The Supreme Court held that the University of Texas at Austin’s consideration of race as part of a holistic admissions process met the strict scrutiny standard and was constitutional.
What is the reasoning?
The Court reasoned that the University of Texas had a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. It also found that the university’s admissions policy was narrowly tailored to achieve this interest, as race was only one factor among many considered in the holistic review process. The decision was further supported by the finding that the university continually assessed and refined its admissions processes to ensure that race was not used more than necessary to achieve diversity. The Court emphasized deference to the University’s academic judgment about the educational value of diversity.
Why is this case significant?
Fisher v. University of Texas is significant as it reaffirms the principles set forth in prior affirmative action cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger. It clarifies the application of strict scrutiny to race-conscious admissions policies and serves as a guide for universities seeking to implement similar policies. For law students, this case is a cornerstone for understanding affirmative action's constitutional dimensions and provides insight into judicial reasoning about equal protection.
What is affirmative action?
Affirmative action refers to policies that provide favorable treatment to underrepresented groups in areas such as education and employment, with the goal of addressing historical discrimination and promoting diversity.
Why was the Fisher case significant for higher education?
Fisher was significant because it upheld the principle that universities could consider race as one factor in admissions to promote diversity, setting a precedent for similar policies nationwide.
What is strict scrutiny?
Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of review used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of laws or policies that classify individuals based on race. Under this review, a law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.
What does it mean for a policy to be 'narrowly tailored'?
A policy is 'narrowly tailored' if it is designed to achieve its objective in the least restrictive way possible, using race-neutral alternatives where feasible and ensuring that race is not used more than necessary.
How did Fisher II differ from Fisher I?
In Fisher I, the Court remanded the case for further scrutiny of the university’s policy. Fisher II culminated in the Supreme Court upholding the university’s admissions program, finding it to be constitutional under strict scrutiny.