Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher II)

Notable Items:

Petitioner: Abigail Noel Fisher
Respondent: University of Texas at Austin, et al.
Venue: Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion of the Court: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher II) (2016)

Issue(s) Before the Court:

... whether the race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.

Petitioner's Claim(s):

... that the University has not articulated its compelling interest with sufficient clarity. According to petitioner, the University must set forth more precisely the level of minority enrollment that would constitute a “critical mass.”
... that the University has no need to consider race because it had already “achieved critical mass” by 2003 using the Top Ten Percent Plan and race-neutral holistic review.
... that considering race was not necessary because such consideration has had only a “ ‘minimal impact’ in advancing the [University’s] compelling interest.”
... that “there are numerous other available race-neutral means of achieving” the University’s compelling interest.

Respondent's Claim(s):

Holding(s) and Disposition:

Held:
Rather, a university may institute a race-conscious admissions program as a means of obtaining “the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity.” Fisher I
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.
Disposition: The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Material Facts:

A full recounting of the facts is available below

Procedural History:

Rationale

Kennedy Majority Opinion (Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor)

Rather, a university may institute a race-conscious admissions program as a means of obtaining “the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity.” Fisher I

The fact that race consciousness played a role in only a small portion of admissions decisions should be a hallmark of narrow tailoring, not evidence of unconstitutionality.

The University has thus met its burden of showing that the admissions policy it used at the time it rejected petitioner’s application was narrowly tailored.

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.

A full description of the rationale is available below

Alito Dissent (Roberts, Thomas)

[Part I]
[Part II]
[Part III]
[Part IV]
It is important to understand what is and what is not at stake in this case. What is not at stake is whether UT or any other university may adopt an admissions plan that results in a student body with a broad representation of students from all racial and ethnic groups. [Integration is not prohibited]
What is at stake is whether university administrators may justify systematic racial discrimination simply by asserting that such discrimination is necessary to achieve “the educational benefits of diversity,” without explaining—much less proving—why the discrimination is needed or how the discriminatory plan is well crafted to serve its objectives.
... UT has failed to satisfy strict scrutiny ....

Thomas Dissent (??)

As Justice Alito explains, the Court’s decision today is irreconcilable with strict scrutiny, rests on pernicious assumptions about race, and departs from many of our precedents.
I write separately to reaffirm that “a State’s use of race in higher education admissions decisions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.” Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, (2013)

Full Recounting of Facts

A list of the material facts is available above

Kennedy Majority Full Argument (Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor)

[Part I]
[Part II]
[Part III]
[Part IV]
[Petitioner's first claim] ... that the University has not articulated its compelling interest with sufficient clarity.
According to petitioner, the University must set forth more precisely the level of minority enrollment that would constitute a “critical mass.”
Rather, a university may institute a race-conscious admissions program as a means of obtaining “the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity.” Fisher I
Indeed, since the University is prohibited from seeking a particular number or quota of minority students, it cannot be faulted for failing to specify the particular level of minority enrollment at which it believes the educational benefits of diversity will be obtained.
A university’s goals cannot be elusory or amorphous—they must be sufficiently measurable to permit judicial scrutiny of the policies adopted to reach them.
[Petitioner's second claim] ... that the University has no need to consider race because it had already “achieved critical mass” by 2003 using the Top Ten Percent Plan and race-neutral holistic review.
... the demographic data the University has submitted show consistent stagnation in terms of the percentage of minority students enrolling at the Univer-sity from 1996 to 2002.
[Petitioner's third claim] ... that considering race was not necessary because such consideration has had only a “ ‘minimal impact’ in advancing the [University’s] compelling interest.”
The fact that race consciousness played a role in only a small portion of admissions decisions should be a hallmark of narrow tailoring, not evidence of unconstitutionality.
[Petitioner's fourth claim] ... that “there are numerous other available race-neutral means of achieving” the University’s compelling interest.
In short, none of petitioner’s suggested alternatives—nor other proposals considered or discussed in the course of this litigation—have been shown to be “available” and “workable” means through which the University could have met its educational goals, as it understood and defined them in 2008. Fisher I
The University has thus met its burden of showing that the admissions policy it used at the time it rejected petitioner’s application was narrowly tailored.
[ * * * ]
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.
The core of the rationale is available above