Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

Background

Harvard and the University of North Carolina use race as one factor in admissions. Harvard's readers score six categories and the “overall” score and committee steps sometimes consider race; the final “lop” list includes race. UNC's readers are required to consider race and may give a race-based “plus,” and a review committee may also consider race. Students for Fair Admissions sued both schools; lower courts held the programs lawful but this Court reviewed the cases.

Reasoning

The legal question was whether those systems meet the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection rules. The Court said they do not. It required strict scrutiny and found the schools' stated goals—like training leaders, preparing citizens, or creating diverse outlooks—too vague to measure or end. The Court also faulted broad or arbitrary racial categories, results that work as negatives against some applicants, and stereotyping. Because the programs lacked a clear end point and were not narrowly tailored, the Court invalidated them. The Court noted applicants may still describe how race affected their lives if tied to a specific personal quality or contribution.

Real world impact

The decision affects applicants, colleges, and how selective schools evaluate students. Universities that used race as a factor must change practices, rely on race-neutral ways to seek variety, or consider an applicant's racial experience only as a concrete part of that individual's story or qualifications. The ruling reversed the lower courts and will shape admissions policies nationwide for years to come.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separately. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh filed concurrences. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan dissented, and Justice Jackson filed a separate dissent as to UNC.