Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin
The Court upheld the University of Texas at Austin's admissions program, ruling that its limited consideration of race as one factor among many in evaluating some applicants satisfied the strict constitutional test that applies to any government use of race.
The decision preserved the framework colleges had relied on since 2003 for weighing race in a holistic admissions process, while making clear that universities must continue to justify and reassess such policies over time.
“Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission.”
The majority explains why courts give universities some leeway in setting their educational goals.
How it got here: A federal trial court and the Fifth Circuit ruled for the University; the Supreme Court vacated and remanded once (Fisher I), then took the case again after the Fifth Circuit again ruled for the University.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The University of Texas at Austin admits most of its freshman class automatically under a state law guaranteeing admission to top-ranking high school graduates, then fills the rest through a holistic review that includes race as one factor. Abigail Fisher, a white applicant who was not in the top ranks of her high school class, was denied admission in 2008 and sued, arguing the University's consideration of race in the holistic process violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The question before the Court
Could a public university's admissions program consider an applicant's race, alongside many other factors, to help build a diverse student body?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court ruled that the University of Texas at Austin's limited consideration of race as one factor within a broader, individualized review of applicants was constitutional. The University had shown a genuine, well-documented need to consider race because its prior race-neutral approach had not achieved the educational benefits of a diverse student body, and it had defined its goals with enough specificity for a court to evaluate them.
The Court also found that none of the race-neutral alternatives the challenger proposed, such as expanding the top-percent admissions law, had been shown to work as well at achieving those goals. Because race played only a modest role in the relatively small share of admissions decided through holistic review, and the University had committed to ongoing reassessment of the policy, the program satisfied the demanding strict-scrutiny standard that applies to any government use of race.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Public and private universities that consider race as part of holistic admissions review can continue to do so under the same legal framework, provided they can show their programs are carefully designed and regularly reassessed. Applicants challenging such programs face a high bar to prove they were denied fair treatment.
What changes now
This is a final decision on the merits resolving the specific admissions policy in place when Fisher applied in 2008. The Court noted the University has an ongoing obligation to keep reassessing its program's fairness and necessity as circumstances change, meaning future versions of the policy could still face new legal challenges. No further proceedings in this case are required.
What this does not decide
The Court did not rule on the state law that automatically admits top-ranked high school graduates, since Fisher never challenged it, even though it affected far more of the class than the race-conscious review. The decision applies specifically to the 2008 policy and does not guarantee that any future or differently designed program would also survive review.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas joined Justice Alito's dissent but wrote separately to argue that using race in college admissions is categorically forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause, regardless of any claimed educational benefits. He would have overruled Grutter v. Bollinger entirely and reversed the Fifth Circuit's judgment outright.
Dissent — Justice Alito
“This is affirmative action gone wild.”Alito's criticism of the University's claim that it needed racial preferences to admit more privileged minority students.
Justice Alito, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas, argued the University never clearly defined its diversity goals or proved race-conscious admissions were necessary to reach them. He contended the University's rationales were shifting, unsupported, and relied on stereotypes about minority students, particularly disadvantaging Asian-American applicants, and would have ruled for Fisher or sent the case back for trial.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied strict scrutiny, the toughest test in constitutional law, which required the University to show its use of race served a genuine and substantial interest and that race played no greater role than necessary to achieve it.
- The Court found the University had identified concrete goals for using race, such as breaking down stereotypes and preparing students for a diverse society, rather than simply seeking a target number of minority students, which would have been an impermissible quota.
- The Court concluded the University had shown, through a year-long study and supporting data, that its prior race-neutral approach had not produced the educational benefits of diversity it sought before it turned to considering race.
- Because the record showed race had only a modest, incremental effect on admissions outcomes, the Court treated that limited impact as evidence the program was narrowly tailored rather than evidence it was unconstitutional.
- The Court rejected each race-neutral alternative the challenger proposed, including expanding the top-percent admissions law or increasing outreach, because the record showed the University had already tried similar approaches without achieving its diversity goals.
- The Court concluded that, drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, the applicant had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that she was denied equal treatment when her application was rejected.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Grutter v. Bollinger (539 U.S. 306)
The majority relies on Grutter's framework allowing race as one factor in holistic university admissions review.
Distinguishes Hopwood v. Texas (78 F.3d 932)
The Court notes Grutter had already implicitly overruled Hopwood's flat ban on considering race in admissions.