Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Fisher

Fisher

Ratings: (0)|Views: 8,741 |Likes:
Published by Zeke Miller
Fisher
Fisher

More info:

Published by: Zeke Miller on Jun 24, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/15/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
1
(Slip Opinion)
OCTOBER TERM, 2012Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See
United States
v.
 Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,
200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
FISHER
v
. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
ET AL
.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCUITNo. 11–345. Argued October 10, 2012—Decided June 24, 2013The University of Texas at Austin considers race as one of various fac-tors in its undergraduate admissions process. The University, whichis committed to increasing racial minority enrollment, adopted itscurrent program after this Court decided
Grutter
v.
 Bollinger
, 539U. S. 306, upholding the use of race as one of many “plus factors” inan admissions program that considered the overall individual contri-bution of each candidate, and decided
Gratz
v.
 Bollinger
, 539 U. S.244, holding unconstitutional an admissions program that automati-cally awarded points to applicants from certain racial minorities.Petitioner, who is Caucasian, was rejected for admission to theUniversity’s 2008 entering class. She sued the University and schoolofficials, alleging that the University’s consideration of race in admis-sions violated the Equal Protection Clause. The District Courtgranted summary judgment to the University. Affirming, the FifthCircuit held that
Grutter
required courts to give substantial defer-ence to the University, both in the definition of the compelling inter-est in diversity’s benefits and in deciding whether its specific planwas narrowly tailored to achieve its stated goal. Applying thatstandard, the court upheld the University’s admissions plan.
Held
: Because the Fifth Circuit did not hold the University to the de-manding burden of strict scrutiny articulated in
Grutter
and
Regentsof Univ. of Cal.
v.
 Bakke
, 438 U. S. 265, its decision affirming the Dis-trict Court’s grant of summary judgment to the University was incor-rect. Pp. 5–13.(a)
 Bakke
,
Gratz
, and
Grutter,
which directly address the questionconsidered here, are taken as given for purposes of deciding this case.In
 Bakke
’s principal opinion, Justice Powell recognized that stateuniversity “decisions based on race or ethnic origin . . . are reviewable
 
 
2 FISHER
v.
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTINSyllabusunder the Fourteenth Amendment,” 438 U. S., at 287, using a strictscrutiny standard,
id.
, at 299. He identified as a compelling interestthat could justify the consideration of race the interest in the educa-tional benefits that flow from a diverse student body, but noted thatthis interest is complex, encompassing a broad array “of qualifica-tions and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a sin-gle though important element.”
Id.,
at 315In
Gratz
and
Grutter,
the Court endorsed these precepts, observingthat an admissions process with such an interest is subject to judicialreview and must withstand strict scrutiny,
Gratz
,
supra
, at 275,
i.e.,
a university must clearly demonstrate that its “ ‘purpose or interest isboth constitutionally permissible and substantial, and that its use of the classification is “necessary . . . to the accomplishment” of its pur-pose,’ ”
 Bakke
,
supra,
at 305. Additional guidance may be found inthe Court’s broader equal protection jurisprudence. See,
e.g., Rice
v.
Cayetano
, 528 U. S. 495, 517;
Richmond
v.
J. A. Croson Co.
, 488 U. S.469, 505. Strict scrutiny is a searching examination, and the gov-ernment bears the burden to prove “ ‘that the reasons for any [racial]classification [are] clearly identified and unquestionably legitimate.’ ”
Ibid.
Pp. 5–8.(b) Under
Grutter,
strict scrutiny must be applied to any admis-sions program using racial categories or classifications. A court maygive some deference to a university’s “judgment that such diversity isessential to its educational mission,” 539 U. S., at 328, provided thatdiversity is not defined as mere racial balancing and there is a rea-soned, principled explanation for the academic decision. On thispoint, the courts below were correct in finding that
Grutter
calls fordeference to the University’s experience and expertise about its edu-cational mission. However, once the University has established thatits goal of diversity is consistent with strict scrutiny, the Universitymust prove that the means it chose to attain that diversity are nar-rowly tailored to its goal. On this point, the University receives nodeference.
Id.,
at 333. It is at all times the University’s obligation todemonstrate, and the Judiciary’s obligation to determine, that admis-sions processes “ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an indi-vidual and not in a way that makes an applicant’s race or ethnicitythe defining feature of his or her application.”
Id.,
at 337. Narrowtailoring also requires a reviewing court to verify that it is “neces-sary” for the university to use race to achieve the educational benefitsof diversity.
 Bakke
,
supra,
at 305. The reviewing court must ulti-mately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives wouldproduce the educational benefits of diversity.Rather than perform this searching examination, the Fifth Circuitheld petitioner could challenge only whether the University’s decision
 
 
3Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)Syllabusto use race as an admissions factor “was made in good faith.” It pre-sumed that the school had acted in good faith and gave petitioner theburden of rebutting that presumption. It thus undertook the narrow-tailoring requirement with a “degree of deference” to the school.These expressions of the controlling standard are at odds with
Grut-ter
’s command that “all racial classifications imposed by government‘must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny.’ 539U. S., at 326. Strict scrutiny does not permit a court to accept aschool’s assertion that its admissions process uses race in a permissi-ble way without closely examining how the process works in practice,yet that is what the District Court and Fifth Circuit did here. TheCourt vacates the Fifth Circuit’s judgment. But fairness to the liti-gants and the courts that heard the case requires that it be remandedso that the admissions process can be considered and judged under acorrect analysis. In determining whether summary judgment in theUniversity’s favor was appropriate, the Fifth Circuit must assesswhether the University has offered sufficient evidence to prove thatits admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educationalbenefits of diversity. Pp. 8–13.631 F. 3d 213, vacated and remanded.
ENNEDY 
, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which R
OBERTS
,C. J., and S
CALIA 
, T
HOMAS
, B
REYER
, A 
LITO
, and S
OTOMAYOR
, JJ., joined.S
CALIA 
, J., and T
HOMAS
, J., filed concurring opinions. G
INSBURG
, J.,filed a dissenting opinion.
 AGAN
, J., took no part in the considerationor decision of the case.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->