U.S. Supreme Court Directs Fifth Circuit To Reevaluate University Of Texas Admissions Process Using “Correct” Strict Scrutiny Test

by Franczek Radelet P.C.

In a 7-1 decision (in which Justice Elena Kagan did not participate), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied the incorrect strict scrutiny standard in deciding that the University of Texas at Austin’s consideration of race in its undergraduate admissions process was legally permissible. Although many have been anticipating a significant adjustment of existing law regarding race-conscious admissions practices, the Supreme Court declined to overrule its previous decisions that have allowed institutions of higher education to consider race as one of several factors in seeking to achieve the educational benefits of diversity. Indeed, the Fisher decision clarified that, at least in the higher education context, schools may exercise their academic judgment to determine that achieving the educational benefits of diversity is a sufficiently compelling objective to justify the consideration of race as one of many diversity factors in conducting a holistic review of applicant files during the admissions process. The Fisher decision also emphasized, however, that institutions may only pursue such an objective using means that are narrowly tailored to meet it.

In writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that it was not enough for courts to ask whether a college or university had acted in “good faith” in its consideration of race. Instead, like other racial classifications, the majority opinion in Fisher stressed that the consideration of race by colleges and universities must be reviewed under the same strict scrutiny test that applies in other contexts. The strict scrutiny test applies to public institutions and to private institutions that receive federal financial assistance. Under this test, an institution of higher education must (1) demonstrate a compelling government interest; and (2) show that the means used to achieve that interest are narrowly tailored. As a result of its decision in Fisher, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit and instructed that Court of Appeals to “assess whether the University has offered sufficient evidence [to] prove that its admissions program is narrowly tailored to meet the educational benefits of diversity.”

The University of Texas at Austin adopted the undergraduate admissions program at issue in Fisher following the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which held that the consideration of race in the University of Michigan’s law school admissions program satisfied strict scrutiny and therefore was constitutional. As the Court explained in Fisher, the Grutter decision “upheld the use of race as one of many ‘plus factors’ in an admissions program that considered the overall individual contribution of each candidate.” The Fisher Court also contrasted the facts at issue in Gratz v. Bollinger, the 2003 companion case to Grutter involving the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions program, in which the Court determined that automatically awarding a certain number of points to applicants from certain racial groups was not constitutional. Like the admissions program approved in Grutter, the University of Texas at Austin did not assign a specified number of points to applicants based upon their race, but, according to the majority, race was still a “meaningful factor.” The University of Texas at Austin is also subject to a law known as the “Top Ten Percent Law,” which guarantees admission to any public university in Texas to all Texas high school students who are in the top 10% of their high school class. A key issue in Fisher was how the Supreme Court would evaluate the University of Texas at Austin’s consideration of race given that, unlike the University of Michigan, the University of Texas is subject to a race-neutral statute like the Top Ten Percent Law, which guarantees admission to certain students without regard to their race. The Supreme Court left this issue unanswered in remanding the Fisher case to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings.

Significantly, the majority opinion in Fisher confirmed many of the key principles that underlie the Supreme Court’s previous decisions in Grutter and Regents of University of California v. Bakke, including the fact that “obtaining the educational benefits of student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.” The Fisher Court emphasized, however, that race may be considered only if the admissions program under review can meet the constitutional test known as “strict scrutiny.” Under that test, a college or university must demonstrate both that its “purpose or interest is both constitutionally permissible and substantial, and that its use of [race] is necessary . . . . to the accomplishment of its purpose.”

Although the Supreme Court confirmed that higher education institutions are entitled to deference with regard to the importance of the educational benefits of having a diverse student body, the majority in Fisher stressed that institutions of higher education face a substantial burden in showing that their consideration of race in the admissions process satisfies the strict scrutiny test. The Supreme Court rejected the standard used by the Fifth Circuit; namely, whether the University’s use of race as a factor in the admissions process was made “in good faith.” Indeed, even if an institution decides that diversity is a sufficiently important interest, there still must be “a further judicial determination” that the means used to achieve diversity are “narrowly tailored” to meet that objective. In more practical terms, this means that admissions standards must be designed to ensure that each applicant is evaluated on an individual basis, rather than allowing an applicant’s race or ethnicity to be the “defining feature” of his or her application. The judicial review required by Fisher also means that the courts must assess whether it is “necessary” for an institution to use race to attain the educational benefits of diversity or whether such benefits could be achieved without considering race. As the Supreme Court explained, strict scrutiny does not allow courts simply to defer to a college or university’s “serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.” Rather, courts must “examine with care” race-neutral alternatives in determining whether consideration of race is actually necessary.

Thus, the Fisher Court has affirmed that colleges and universities should be afforded some level of deference in determining whether the educational benefits of diversity are an objective worth pursuing, while suggesting that those same institutions will be afforded less deference in assessing in whether the means used to achieve that objective are narrowly tailored. Indeed, the Court specifically stated that “[t]he higher education dynamic does not change the narrow tailoring analysis of strict scrutiny applicable in other contexts.” In the end, the Court stressed that the burden rests on institutions to demonstrate that such race-neutral alternatives are not adequate to achieve the educational benefits of diversity. In so doing, the Fisher Court stressed that institutions of higher education will not be afforded deference with regard to the issue of whether the means used to achieve diversity are narrowly tailored to meet that objective.

In deciding Fisher, the Supreme Court made no mention of its 2007 decision in Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the compelling interest in advancing the educational benefits of diversity recognized in Grutter was limited to the higher education context and, therefore, did not apply to the consideration of race by elementary and secondary schools. While the Seattle School District decision limited the permissible uses of race in the K-12 context, however, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Fisher echoes his concurring opinion in the Seattle School District case with regard to the issue of narrow tailoring and stresses that race neutrality should be part of the strict scrutiny analysis, which applies to both K-12 and higher education.

What remains to be seen is precisely how far the University of Texas at Austin and other institutions of higher education will have to go to demonstrate that race-neutral alternatives or other means are not adequate to permit colleges and universities to achieve a sufficient level of diversity. With Justices Thomas and Scalia concurring in the result but also indicating that they would overturn Grutter if given the opportunity, the extent to which their views could influence any subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Fisher remains unclear.  Regardless of whether institutions are governed by a law comparable to Texas’s “Top Ten Percent Law,” both public and private colleges and universities should take this opportunity to ensure that any consideration of race in their admissions processes are consistent with the admissions policies at issue in Bakke and Grutter and to continue to assess whether race-neutral alternatives would allow them to meet their objectives.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Franczek Radelet P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Franczek Radelet P.C.

Franczek Radelet P.C. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.