Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard College

Brief Filed: 8/22
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Year of Decision: 2023

Read full-text amicus brief (PDF, 222KB)opens in new window

(1) Should the Supreme Court decide that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions, thus overruling its previous decision in Grutter v. Bollinger? (2) Does the University’s race-conscious admissions process violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Asian American applicants and favoring White applicants?

Affirmative Action

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) brought suit against Harvard University alleging that their admission processes were discriminating against Asian Applicants in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Harvard’s “holistic” admissions process treats each applicant as an individual, allowing for the consideration of race and ethnicity when reviewing applications. While admitting to using race as one of many factors in admission decisions, Harvard argued that its admissions process adheres to the requirements set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (holding that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the narrowly tailored usage of race in admissions decisions, if it furthers a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits resulting from a diverse student body). The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of Harvard at trial and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision. SFFA appealed to the Supreme Court. It has been consolidated for oral argument with a challenge brought by SFFA to the admission policies at the University of North Carolina.

APA’s brief cited a compelling body of scientific evidence supporting the educational benefits of campus diversity, as well as research showing that improving racial-ethnic diversity in higher education remains a compelling need as prejudice and underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minority groups are still present on college campuses today. Furthermore, the brief offered a wealth of empirically-based psychological research confirming that a lack of racial-ethnic diversity within higher education poses significant educational obstacles for both racial-ethnic minority and nonminority students alike, and that a racially and ethnically diverse student body not only buffers these effects, but improves educational outcomes for all students.

On June 29, 2023, the United States Supreme Court ruled that using race as a factor in higher education admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court reasoned that affirmative action in admissions lacked sufficient measurable objectives, involved stereotyping, and lacked endpoints. Justice Jackson’s dissent cited APA’s amicus brief, stating, “Schools properly care about preventing racial isolation on campus because research shows that it matters for students’ ability to learn and succeed while in college if they live and work with at least some other people who look like them and are likely to have similar experiences related to that shared characteristic.”