Subscribe to School Law Newsletter
Close Window

United States Supreme Court Overturns Affirmative Action

In the case of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harv. Coll. (June 29, 2023), the United States Supreme Court held that public and private universities that receive federal funding may not consider race in their admissions process.

In this case, the organization argued that the universities’ practice of considering race in their highly selective admissions process discriminated against students based on race. In response, the universities argued that student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the organization.

In support of its lead decision in favor of the organization, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that there was a disconnect between how the universities used race in their admissions process and how the universities’ goals of student body diversity were to be accomplished. The U.S. Supreme Court further explained that the universities’ use of race in their admissions process employed race in a negative manner, involved racial stereotyping, and lacked meaningful end points.

In support of its concurring decision in favor of the organization, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that not only is the use of race in university admissions processes unconstitutional but is also in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In support of its dissenting decision in favor of the universities, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that precedent and the entire teachings of our history mandates that the universities be allowed to continue using the admission processes.

NOTE: While race may no longer be considered in public and private universities that receive federal funding admissions process, the Court also explained that universities may consider an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.

To read this case, click here.

Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.

Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.