SCOTUS RULES: FISHER v. UNIV. OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, ET AL. (A Racial Preferences Case)

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

This Supreme Court update is presented as a public service by the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors.

SUMMARY

Today (Monday, June 24, 2013) the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), in the controversial case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, et al., 570 U.D.___(2013), permitted affirmative action in college admission to continue but imposed an additional tough legal standard.  The Court essentially ruled that colleges must prove there are "no workable race-neutral alternatives" to affirmative action to achieve diversity on campus.

SYLLABUS

FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, ET AL., Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 570 U.S.___(2013), No. 11-345, Argued October 10, 2012 - Decided June 24, 2013.

The University of Texas at Austin considers race as one of various factors in its undergraduate admissions process. The University, which is committed to increasing racial minority enrollment, adopted its current program after this Court decided Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306, upholding the use of race as one of many “plus factors” in an admissions program that considered the overall individual contribution of each candidate, and decided Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244, holding unconstitutional an admissions program that automatically awarded points to applicants from certain racial minorities.

Petitioner, who is Caucasian, was rejected for admission to the University’s 2008 entering class. She sued the University and school officials, alleging that the University’s consideration of race in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause.

 

The District Court granted summary judgment to the University.

 

Affirming, the Fifth Circuit held that Grutter required courts to give substantial deference to the University, both in the definition of the compelling interest in diversity’s benefits and in deciding whether its specific plan was narrowly tailored to achieve its stated goal. Applying that standard, the court upheld the University’s admissions plan.

Held: Because the Fifth Circuit did not hold the University to the demanding burden of strict scrutiny articulated in Grutter and Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, its decision affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the University was incorrect. Pp. 5–13.

 

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight.  You win.")

Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]