Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 31, 2022 Decided June 29, 2023 |
|
| Full case name | Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College |
| Docket nos. | 20-1199 |
| Citations | 600 U.S. 181 (more) |
| Prior history | Judgment for Harvard, 397 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D. Mass. 2019); affirmed, 980 F.3d 157 (1st Cir. 2020); cert. granted, 142 S. Ct. 895 (2022) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion Announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Questions presented | |
| (1) Should this Court overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bans race-based admissions that, if done by a public university, would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Is Harvard violating Title VI by penalizing Asian-American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race, and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives? |
|
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Concurrence | Gorsuch, joined by Thomas |
| Concurrence | Kavanaugh |
| Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson |
| Dissent | Jackson |
| Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 |
|
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard is a very important decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2023. The Court decided that programs called affirmative action, which use race as a factor in college admissions, are against the law. Specifically, they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This ruling, along with a similar case called Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, changed earlier decisions. Before this, cases like Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) allowed colleges to consider race in a limited way. Now, that is no longer allowed.
Contents
Understanding the Case
This section explains the main ideas behind the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case. It covers why the lawsuit started and what the Supreme Court decided.
What is Affirmative Action?
Affirmative action refers to policies that aim to help groups who have faced unfair treatment in the past. In college admissions, it meant that universities could consider a student's race as one factor among many. The goal was to create a more diverse student body.
Why the Lawsuit Started
In 2013, a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard University. SFFA claimed that Harvard's admission process was unfair to Asian Americans. They said it discriminated against Asian American students by making it harder for them to get in. This, they argued, went against Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans racial discrimination by schools that receive federal money.
A lower court first said Harvard's use of race was okay. Then, a higher court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, agreed. But SFFA kept fighting and asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.
The Supreme Court's Decision
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court made its decision. By a vote of 6-2, the Court said that Harvard's admission program was unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the main opinion. He stated that using race as a factor in college admissions is against the Constitution.
It's important to note that this ruling did not apply to U.S. military academies. The Court did not decide on those because they were not part of this specific case.
Historical Background of Affirmative Action
The idea of affirmative action in the U.S. has a long history. Several important court cases shaped how it was used in universities before the 2023 ruling.
Key Past Court Cases
- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): The Supreme Court said that colleges could use race as a factor in admissions. However, they could not set specific numbers or "quotas" for different racial groups.
- Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): This case confirmed that colleges could consider race to achieve a diverse student body. But it had to be done in a very limited way.
- Gratz v. Bollinger (2003): In a related case, the Court ruled that a points system giving extra points to minority applicants was unconstitutional.
- Fisher v. University of Texas (2016): The Court said that universities must show a very good reason for using race in admissions. This is called "strict scrutiny."
These past cases allowed some use of race to create diverse classrooms. But the recent Harvard decision changed this.
Different Views on Affirmative Action
For many years, people have had different opinions about affirmative action.
- Some people, including many African Americans and some Hispanic and Latino Americans, supported it. They believed it helped address past unfairness and create equal opportunities.
- Others, including some white Americans and Asian Americans, criticized it. They felt it could lead to unfair treatment based on race.
- Politicians often disagree on this topic. Democrats generally supported affirmative action, while Republicans often opposed it.
The District Court Case
This section looks at the first part of the lawsuit against Harvard University.
The Lawsuit Against Harvard
SFFA filed their lawsuit in 2014. They claimed that Harvard was unfairly treating Asian American students. SFFA was started by Edward Blum, a legal strategist who has worked on other cases against racial classifications.
SFFA argued that Harvard's admissions process:
- Had a "soft quota" that limited the number of Asian American students.
- Gave Asian American applicants lower scores on "personal traits" like kindness or courage. This happened even though Asian Americans often had higher test scores and grades.
- Did not admit more Asian Americans, even as their application numbers grew.
Harvard's Defense
Harvard denied that its admissions process was unfair. They said:
- They consider many factors, not just grades, because they get so many qualified applications.
- Their "personal rating" looks at essays, recommendations, and interviews.
- The percentage of Asian American students at Harvard had actually increased over time.
- They had looked at other ways to create a diverse student body but found none worked as well.
Harvard also presented its own expert analysis. This analysis claimed that SFFA's data was incomplete and did not show discrimination.
Decisions by Lower Courts
In 2019, a district court judge ruled in favor of Harvard. The judge said there was no proof that Harvard intentionally discriminated against Asian Americans.
SFFA appealed this decision. In 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also ruled in favor of Harvard. They agreed with the first judge's findings. After these losses, SFFA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.
The Supreme Court's Review
After the lower courts ruled, SFFA asked the Supreme Court to take on the case. They also asked the Court to hear a similar case against the University of North Carolina.
How the Supreme Court Took the Case
The Supreme Court agreed to hear both the Harvard and UNC cases in January 2022. They were initially combined. However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had been on the Harvard Board of Overseers. Because of this, she decided not to take part in the Harvard case. So, the Court separated the two cases, allowing her to participate in the UNC one. Both cases were argued on October 31, 2022.
Opinions of the Justices
The Supreme Court announced its decision on June 29, 2023.
- Majority Opinion: Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the main opinion. He said that the Fourteenth Amendment means everyone must be treated equally, regardless of race. He stated that affirmative action programs "lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives" and "unavoidably employ race in a negative manner." He emphasized that colleges cannot use race as a factor in admissions. However, he noted that students could still discuss how race has affected their lives in their applications.
- Concurring Opinions: Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh wrote separate opinions agreeing with the majority. Justice Thomas argued for a "colorblind constitution," meaning the law should not see race at all. Justice Gorsuch focused on how the Civil Rights Act also bans race-based admissions.
- Dissenting Opinions: Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote opinions disagreeing with the majority. Justice Sotomayor argued that "Ignoring race will not equalize a society that is racially unequal." She believed the decision went against past rulings and history. Justice Jackson wrote that the majority's decision was "ahistorical, and counterproductive." She felt it would hurt progress toward true equality.
Impact of the Decision
The Supreme Court's ruling has had a big impact on colleges and other organizations.
College Admissions Changes
- Harvard University and the University of North Carolina both stated they would follow the new law. However, they also said they still believe in having a diverse student body.
- Many universities are now looking for new ways to achieve diversity without directly using race in admissions. This might include focusing more on a student's background, experiences, or where they come from.
- Some states, like California and Florida, already had laws banning race-based admissions. They have used other methods, such as looking at socioeconomic status, to try and create diverse campuses.
Wider Effects
- The ruling could also affect other programs that aim for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in workplaces. Some groups believe this decision will encourage more challenges to such programs.
- The Department of Justice and the United States Department of Education are working to help colleges understand what admission practices are still allowed.
Public and Political Reactions
The Supreme Court's decision caused strong reactions from many people, including politicians and civil rights leaders.
Support for the Ruling
- Former President Donald Trump called it "a great day for America," saying it would reward "people with extraordinary ability."
- Many Republican politicians, like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Tim Scott, supported the decision. They argued that college admissions should be based on merit, not race.
- Edward Blum, who founded SFFA, said the ruling was "the beginning of the restoration of the colorblind legal covenant."
Opposition to the Ruling
- President Joe Biden said the decision was "not a normal court" and that the U.S. needed "a new path forward."
- Many Democratic politicians, including Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer and former President Barack Obama, disagreed with the ruling. They felt it was a setback for racial justice.
- Civil rights leaders, like Derrick Johnson from the NAACP, said the Court ignored the reality of racial inequality in society.
University and Other Reactions
- Leaders from many universities, including the University of California system and Johns Hopkins University, expressed disappointment. They said the ruling would make it harder to build diverse communities.
- Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Department of Justice would help colleges find legal ways to promote diversity.
- A 2023 poll showed that most Americans do not approve of using race and ethnicity in college admissions.
Images for kids
-
Chief Justice John Roberts
