Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. ____ (2023)
Author: Roberts (majority) Outcome: Plaintiffs win ($d = 1$: race-based admissions violate EP) Concurrences: Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh Dissents: Sotomayor, Jackson (in No. 21–707)
1. Holding ($H_t$)
"Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." (p. 2)
"Respondents’ admissions systems fail each of these criteria and must therefore be invalidated under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." (p. 22)
As constraint on admissible $(w, c)$: Rules out any decision rule under which race can be used as a factor in college admissions decisions. Formally: if $z$ has (race considered = yes), then admissible $(w, c)$ must map to $d = 1$ (invalidate). The weight on racial classification must be zero, and race cannot be a determinative factor in admissions decisions.
What the holding does NOT constrain:
- Whether race can be considered in other contexts outside of college admissions
- The use of race-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity
- The consideration of race in other areas of law outside the Equal Protection Clause
- The potential for race to be considered in admissions if narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest not addressed in this case
2. Fact vector $z_t$
2a. Raw salient facts
- Race as a factor: "Harvard’s admissions officers 'can and do take an applicant’s race into account' when assigning an overall rating." (p. 10). Favors: plaintiff.
- Race-based tips: "Race-based tips are 'determinative' in securing favorable decisions for a significant percentage of 'African American and Hispanic applicants.'" (p. 10). Favors: plaintiff.
- Racial composition monitoring: "The committee discusses the relative breakdown of applicants by race." (p. 3). Favors: plaintiff.
- Lop list considerations: "The lop list contains only four pieces of information: legacy status, recruited athlete status, financial aid eligibility, and race." (p. 3). Favors: plaintiff.
- Diversity goals: "Harvard’s view about when [race-based admissions will end] doesn’t have a date on it." (p. 22). Favors: plaintiff.
- Race-neutral alternatives: "SFFA contends that both Harvard and UNC could obtain significant racial diversity without resorting to race-based admissions practices." (p. 14). Favors: plaintiff.
2b. Dimension mapping
| Dimension | Value | Raw fact(s) mapped | Textual basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 Facial classification | High | Race as a factor; race-based tips | "Harvard’s admissions officers 'can and do take an applicant’s race into account'" (p. 10) |
| D2 Protected trait | Race | Race as a factor; racial composition monitoring | "The committee discusses the relative breakdown of applicants by race" (p. 3) |
| D3 Intent evidence | High | Race-based tips; lop list considerations | "Race-based tips are 'determinative' in securing favorable decisions" (p. 10) |
| D4 Interest strength | Weak | Diversity goals | "Harvard’s view about when [race-based admissions will end] doesn’t have a date on it" (p. 22) |
| D5 Means-ends fit | Poor | Race-neutral alternatives | "SFFA contends that both Harvard and UNC could obtain significant racial diversity without resorting to race-based admissions practices" (p. 14) |
| D6 Stigma / caste risk | High | Race as a factor; race-based tips | "Race-based tips are 'determinative' in securing favorable decisions" (p. 10) |
| D7 Institutional setting | Admissions | Diversity goals | "Harvard’s view about when [race-based admissions will end] doesn’t have a date on it" (p. 22) |
| D8 Precedent density | High conflict | — | Overrules prior precedent allowing race as a factor in admissions |
Unmapped facts:
- Lop list considerations do not map cleanly to any existing dimension. It reflects the procedural aspect of admissions rather than a substantive legal principle. This might warrant a separate dimension capturing procedural transparency in admissions processes.
3. Treatment of prior holdings ($\mathcal{F}_t$ update)
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
- Status: Overruled. "The Court’s opinion rightly makes clear that Grutter is, for all intents and purposes, overruled." (p. 58, Thomas concurrence).
- Characterization: The Court rejects the notion that race-based admissions can be justified indefinitely. It emphasizes the need for a logical end point and rejects the compelling interest in diversity as insufficient.
- Model interpretation: Removes the constraint that allowed race to be considered as a factor in admissions if narrowly tailored to achieve diversity. Tightens $\mathcal{F}_t$ to exclude any race-based considerations in admissions.
Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke (1978)
- Status: Overruled in part. The Court rejects the diversity rationale as a compelling interest justifying race-based admissions.
- Characterization: The Court dismisses the diversity rationale as insufficient to justify race-based admissions under strict scrutiny.
- Model interpretation: Removes the constraint that permitted race as a factor in admissions for the purpose of achieving diversity. Aligns $\mathcal{F}_t$ with a stricter interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause.
4. Overruling (constraint removal at cost $C$)
What is removed: The constraints from Grutter and Bakke that allowed race to be considered as a factor in college admissions to achieve diversity.
Justification (mapping to stare decisis factors):
- Quality of reasoning: The Court finds the diversity rationale insufficient under strict scrutiny and emphasizes the need for a logical end point.
- Workability: The Court criticizes the lack of clear metrics to evaluate the success of diversity goals and the indefinite nature of race-based admissions.
- Consistency with related doctrine: The decision aligns with a broader interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause that prohibits race-based distinctions.
- Reliance interests: The Court acknowledges reliance on race-based admissions but emphasizes the need to adhere to constitutional principles.
- Changed facts: The Court notes the lack of progress toward ending race-based admissions and the availability of race-neutral alternatives.
Institutional cost: The decision signals a significant shift in admissions policies, requiring institutions to adopt race-neutral alternatives. The Court acknowledges the potential impact on diversity but emphasizes constitutional adherence.
5. Breadth
Narrow reading (what the Court explicitly holds):
- Race cannot be used as a factor in college admissions decisions.
- Applies to Harvard and UNC but sets a precedent for all institutions receiving federal funds.
Broad reading (what the reasoning supports):
- Prohibits any race-based considerations in admissions across all educational institutions.
- Extends to other areas where race might be considered under the Equal Protection Clause.
Breadth ambiguity: The decision leaves open the possibility of race-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity, but the scope and implementation of such alternatives remain undefined. The Court's emphasis on strict scrutiny suggests a narrow path for any future race-conscious policies.
6. Concurrences / dissents (alternative admissible theories)
Thomas, J., concurring
- Alternative constraint structure: Emphasizes a colorblind interpretation of the Constitution, rejecting any race-based considerations.
- Key disagreement: Disagrees with the notion that diversity can justify race-based admissions. Emphasizes historical context and the need for a colorblind approach.
Gorsuch, J., concurring
- Alternative constraint structure: Focuses on the statutory interpretation of Title VI, aligning it with the Equal Protection Clause.
- Key disagreement: Emphasizes the statutory basis for prohibiting race-based admissions, aligning with the majority's constitutional interpretation.
Kavanaugh, J., concurring
- Alternative constraint structure: Agrees with the majority but emphasizes the temporal limit set by Grutter and the need to adhere to it.
- Key disagreement: Highlights the Court's prior acknowledgment of a time limit on race-based admissions.
Sotomayor, J., dissenting
- Alternative constraint structure: Supports the continued use of race as a factor in admissions to achieve diversity and address historical inequalities.
- Key disagreement: Emphasizes the importance of diversity and the role of race-conscious policies in achieving educational equality.
Jackson, J., dissenting (in No. 21–707)
- Alternative constraint structure: Argues for the necessity of race-conscious admissions to address systemic inequalities and promote diversity.
- Key disagreement: Criticizes the majority for ignoring the realities of racial inequality and the benefits of diversity in education.
7. Reasoning revealing implicit weights on dimensions
Race as a determinative factor (D1 weight is high):
"Race-based tips are 'determinative' in securing favorable decisions for a significant percentage of 'African American and Hispanic applicants.'" (p. 10)
The Court emphasizes that race cannot be a determinative factor in admissions, signaling a high weight on prohibiting racial classifications.
Diversity rationale insufficient (D4 weight is weak):
"Harvard’s view about when [race-based admissions will end] doesn’t have a date on it." (p. 22)
The Court finds the diversity rationale insufficient under strict scrutiny, indicating a weak weight on diversity as a compelling interest.
Availability of race-neutral alternatives (D5 weight is poor):
"SFFA contends that both Harvard and UNC could obtain significant racial diversity without resorting to race-based admissions practices." (p. 14)
The Court emphasizes the availability of race-neutral alternatives, suggesting a poor weight on the means-ends fit of race-based admissions.
Historical context and colorblindness (D6 weight is high):
"The Court’s opinion rightly makes clear that Grutter is, for all intents and purposes, overruled." (p. 58, Thomas concurrence)
The Court's reasoning reflects a high weight on the historical context and the need for a colorblind interpretation of the Constitution.