Fisher v. University of Texas

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
Docket number: 11-345
Court: United States Supreme Court
Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Steven G. Breyer Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin is a case ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court in 2013 and again in 2016 regarding the consideration of race in university admissions. In a 7-1 decision delivered on June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action admissions policies must be held to a standard of "strict scrutiny" when reviewed in the courts. The court held that strict scrutiny standards place the burden of proof upon the university to demonstrate that its consideration of race is "narrowly tailored" and necessary to obtain campus diversity. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court with instructions to more closely examine the admissions policies of the University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin).

In July 2014, after the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld UT-Austin's admissions plan, Abigail Fisher—a white woman who argued that she was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin because of her race, thus violating her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection—petitioned the Supreme Court to review her case once again.

SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston offered two potential reasons for the court's decision to rehear Fisher's case. He wrote, "One potential avenue for new guidance would be for the Court to refine the concept of 'critical mass' — that is, the point at which a college admissions plan produces enough minority students with special promise of succeeding in college to achieve the academic goal of racial diversity, broadly defined and not just a racial quota. ...The most intriguing prospect would be for the Court to make the decision turn on an issue that Fisher’s lawyers say entered the case late: whether a university can adopt an admissions plan that views applicants differently based on whether they went to racially segregated high schools with lower academic performance ratings."

In a 4-3 decision delivered on June 23, 2016, the court held that UT-Austin's race-conscious undergraduate admissions program did not violate the Equal Protection Clause; however, in his opinion for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stipulated that "a college must continually reassess its need for race-conscious review. ... The Court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies."

Fisher I

Affirmative action
Affirmative action
Affirmative action by state
Affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws
Affirmative action and anti-discrimination lawsuits
Civil Rights Act of 1866
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Consideration of race in college admissions

Due to a 1996 ruling from a lower court in Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School that the consideration of race in admissions was unconstitutional, the University of Texas system suspended its affirmative action program. In its place, the Texas Legislature passed a law authorizing a "Top 10 Percent" plan for admissions at the University of Texas. This plan automatically admitted all high school students graduating in the top 10 percent of their class to one of the campuses in the system.

After Hopwood was reversed in 2003 by Grutter v. Bollinger, the University of Texas at Austin revised its admissions policy. It used the Top 10 Percent plan to fill 75 percent of the open spots for its entering freshman classes, undertaking a traditional admissions process for the remaining 25 percent. Under this process, the university once again considered race in its admissions.

Abigail Fisher, a white woman who fell just short of being admitted to UT-Austin under the Top 10 Percent plan, was denied admission under the school's competitive admissions policy. Fisher sued, claiming that the university's consideration of race violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The university held that its consideration of race was narrowly tailored according to judicial standards and that it was necessary for campus diversity.

The district court found in favor of the university, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed. Fisher further appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Question presented: "Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions?"

The court heard oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin on October 10, 2012.

• Transcript of oral argument: United States Supreme Court, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

• Audio of oral argument: United States Supreme Court, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

The Supreme Court did not strike down the university's consideration of race. Instead, it found faults in the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and vacated the lower court's opinion. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the opinion for the majority, explained that when admissions policies of affirmative action are under judicial review, they must be examined by a standard of "strict scrutiny" for the court to determine whether the policies are individualized or "narrowly tailored" and serve a compelling governmental interest. This standard places the burden of proof on universities to demonstrate that its policies meet these qualifications and that diversity cannot be achieved without them.

University of Texas at Austin

The court determined that the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had not sufficiently held the policies of the University of Texas to a standard of strict scrutiny. According to the Supreme Court, the appellate court had taken the school at its word that its consideration of race met the required qualifications and had instead placed the burden on the plaintiff to rebut this. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court with instructions to more closely examine the admissions policies of UT-Austin.

Justice Antonin Scalia concurred, but he wrote a separate opinion in which he stated that while the U.S. Constitution prohibits any discrimination on the basis of race, the precedent of allowing universities to consider race to achieve diversity was not at question. He agreed with the majority opinion in full.

Justice Clarence Thomas also concurred, but he further wrote that the consideration of race in admissions was not constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. He also wrote that the benefits of diversity are not necessary and do not constitute a compelling governmental interest.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, writing that the university properly considered race as one factor among many when making admissions decisions. She added that the Equal Protection Clause does not mean universities should be "blind to the history of overt discrimination."

Aftermath and legacy

The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ultimately upheld the admissions policies of the UT-Austin. The ruling of the Supreme Court was seen by many as a compromise between its liberal and conservative justices. However, the court’s opinion solidly placed the burden on universities to prove that their consideration of race in admissions is narrowly tailored and that racial diversity cannot be achieved by any other method when they use such policies. The opinion opened new doors for challenges to universities that consider race in their admissions.

Fischer II

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
Docket number: 14-981
Court: United States Supreme Court
Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Associate JusticesAnthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Steven G. Breyer Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan

See also: Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term and SCOTUS to hear major affirmative action case

In July 2014, after the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld UT-Austin's admissions plan, Abigail Fisher petitioned the Supreme Court to review her case once again. According to Lisa Soronen of the National Conference of State Legislatures, "Per Texas’s Top Ten Percent Plan, the top 10 percent of Texas high school graduates are automatically admitted to UT Austin, which fills about 80 percent of the class. Unless an applicant has an 'exceptionally high academic Index,' he or she will be evaluated through a holistic review where race is one of a number of factors." Fisher argued that the appeals court did not apply "strict scrutiny" when evaluating UT-Austin's admissions policy.

The brief for Fisher stated, "UT ultimately chose to dilute the demographic interest presented in its Proposal to a vague and undefined concept: that it seeks only to reduce, not eliminate, 'the degree of disparity' between its minority enrollment and state demographics. App. 197a. Such an undefined goal cannot be subjected to strict scrutiny. There is simply no way for a court to know what specific 'demographic' interest UT was pursuing, why a race-neutral alternative could not achieve that interest, and when that 'demographic' goal would be satisfied. UT’s equivocation undermines any claim that an asserted interest in demographic parity is 'both constitutionally permissible and substantial.'"

Question presented: "Whether the Fifth Circuit's re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court's decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013)."

The court heard oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin on December 9, 2015.

• Transcript of oral argument: United States Supreme Court, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

• Audio of oral argument: United States Supreme Court, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

In a 4-3 decision delivered on June 23, 2016, the court held that the university’s race-conscious undergraduate admissions program did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. However, in his opinion for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stipulated that "a college must continually reassess its need for race-conscious review. ... The Court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies." Justice Elena Kagan recused herself, so seven justices decided the case, preventing a 4-4 split decision.

See also

• Fourteenth Amendment
• Affirmative action
• Grutter v. Bollinger
• Gratz v. Bollinger
• Supreme Court of the United States
• Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term

External links

• SupremeCourt.gov