Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

{{Further|Affirmative action in the United States#Implementation in universities}}

The case's historical and legal background spans several decades, from the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, over the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, to the 2016 case Fisher v. University of Texas.{{cite journal|journal=Harvard Magazine|title=Supreme Court Bans Race-Conscious Admissions|last=Shaw|first=Jonathan|url=https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2023/06/harvard-supreme-court-ruling-2023|date=June 29, 2023|accessdate=June 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629171111/https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2023/06/harvard-supreme-court-ruling-2023|archive-date=June 29, 2023}} The Supreme Court ruled in Bakke, a landmark decision, that affirmative action could be used as a determining factor in college admission policy but that the University of California, Davis School of Medicine's racial quota was discriminatory. The Court upheld Bakke in Grutter v. Bollinger, another landmark decision. Concurrently, in Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court ruled that the points system the University of Michigan used to favor underrepresented minorities was unconstitutional. The Court vacated Fisher v. University of Texas (2013){{Efn|Referred to as Fisher I to distinguish it from Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)}} and upheld the lower court's decision to apply strict scrutiny to the University of Texas at Austin's race-conscious admissions policy in Fisher v. University of Texas (2016).{{Efn|Referred to as Fisher II to distinguish it from Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)}}{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/27/supreme-court-affirmative-action-admissions-history/ |title=On cusp of affirmative action decision, how Supreme Court ruled before |date=June 27, 2023 |last=Barnes |first=Robert |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=June 29, 2023}} In Fisher II, strict scrutiny requires that the use of race serve a "compelling governmental interest"—like the educational benefits that stem from diversity—and be "narrowly tailored" to satisfy that interest.{{cite web |url=https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/10/2/admissions-suit-decision/ |title=Federal Judge Rules Harvard's Admissions Policies Do Not Discriminate Against Asian American Applicants |date=October 2, 2019 |last1=Caldera |first1=Camille |last2=Franklin |first2=Delano |last3=Zwickel |first3=Samuel |work=The Harvard Crimson |access-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-date=May 19, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200519163157/https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/10/2/admissions-suit-decision/ |url-status=live }} Institutions that receive federal funding, such as Harvard University, are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws racial discrimination.{{cite web |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvards-asian-quotas-repeat-an-ugly-history-11570575962 |title=Harvard's Asian Quotas Repeat an Ugly History |date=October 8, 2019 |last=Riley |first=Jason |work=The Wall Street Journal |access-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-date=May 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200514173901/https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvards-asian-quotas-repeat-an-ugly-history-11570575962 |url-status=live }}

For years before 2023, some considered affirmative action in the U.S. a wedge issue among Asian Americans.{{cite magazine |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirmative-action-and-asian-americans |title=The Uncomfortable Truth About Affirmative Action and Asian-Americans |date=August 10, 2017 |last=Suk Gersen |first=Jeannie |magazine=The New Yorker |access-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629154835/https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirmative-action-and-asian-americans |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2018-10-12/affirmative-action-case-drives-wedge-in-asian-american-community |title=A Community Divided |date=October 12, 2018 |last=Camera |first=Lauren |work=U.S. News and World Report |access-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-date=June 3, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230603115932/https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2018-10-12/affirmative-action-case-drives-wedge-in-asian-american-community |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/experts-say-framing-affirmative-action-anti-asian-bias-dangerous-rcna13544 |title=Experts say framing affirmative action as anti-Asian bias is 'dangerous' |date=January 25, 2022 |last=Yam |first=Kimmy |publisher=NBC News |access-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629154835/https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/experts-say-framing-affirmative-action-anti-asian-bias-dangerous-rcna13544 |url-status=live }} It was contended that the practice drew criticism from white and Asian Americans, but support from African Americans, and mixed support among Hispanic and Latino Americans.{{Cite report |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2023/06/PP_2023.06.08_college-admissions_REPORT.pdf |title=More Americans Disapprove Than Approve of Colleges Considering Race, Ethnicity in Admissions Decisions |date=June 2023 |publisher=Pew Research Center}} In polling about affirmative action, answers varied depending on how the question was asked, suggesting ambivalence. There was a divide between Democrats and Republicans.{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/affirmative-action-polls.html |title=Views on affirmative action are split along racial and political lines. |date=June 29, 2023 |last=Igielnik |first=Ruth |work=The New York Times |access-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629143630/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/affirmative-action-polls.html |url-status=live }}

Opposition to affirmative action emerged in the neoconservative journal The Public Interest, particularly with editor Nathan Glazer's 1975 book Affirmative Discrimination: Ethnic Inequality and Public Policy.{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/opinion/supreme-court-affirmative-action.html |title=The 50-Year Fight to Dismantle Affirmative Action |date=June 29, 2023 |last=Karabel |first=Jerome |author-link=Jerome Karabel |work=The New York Times |access-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629151725/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/opinion/supreme-court-affirmative-action.html |url-status=live }} In the Roberts Court, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the benefits of diversity in a physics class in Fisher II.{{cite web |url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/10/9886088/roberts-affirmative-action-physics |title=Chief Justice Roberts asked why diversity matters in a physics class. Here's an answer. |date=December 10, 2015 |last=Nelson |first=Libby |work=Vox |access-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629161616/https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/10/9886088/roberts-affirmative-action-physics |url-status=live }} Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito had opposed affirmative action; the remaining three conservative justices had no track record of opposing affirmative action before the ruling, although a 1999 article Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in The Wall Street Journal signaled he would end it. Justice Sotomayor had repeatedly and proudly said she was a "product of affirmative action" and defended affirmative action in previous cases before the Court.{{cite news |url=https://apnews.com/article/ketanji-brown-jackson-us-supreme-court-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-education-15a37e379866d590da82c0d0224679e3 |title=Justices' past affirmative action views, in their own words |date=October 30, 2022 |last=Gresko |first=Jessica |work=Associated Press News |access-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629160129/https://apnews.com/article/ketanji-brown-jackson-us-supreme-court-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-education-15a37e379866d590da82c0d0224679e3 |url-status=live }}

On November 17, 2014, SFFA, representing a group of anonymous Asian American plaintiffs Harvard University had rejected, sued the school in federal district court. The suit claimed that Asians were being discriminated against in favor of whites.{{cite web|title=The lawsuit against Harvard that could change affirmative action in college admissions, explained|url=https://www.vox.com/2018/10/18/17984108/harvard-asian-americans-affirmative-action-racial-discrimination|last=Lockhart|first=P. R.|date=October 18, 2018|website=Vox|language=en|access-date=May 13, 2020|archive-date=September 7, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200907173312/https://www.vox.com/2018/10/18/17984108/harvard-asian-americans-affirmative-action-racial-discrimination|url-status=live}} SFFA was founded by conservative legal strategist Edward Blum, who also founded the Project on Fair Representation, with a goal to end racial classifications in education, voting procedures, legislative redistricting, and employment.{{Cite news |title=How one man brought affirmative action to the Supreme Court. Again and again. |language=en-US |newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/24/edward-blum-supreme-court-harvard-unc/ |access-date=2022-10-25 |issn=0190-8286 |archive-date=October 25, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221025144123/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/24/edward-blum-supreme-court-harvard-unc/ |url-status=live }} Blum participated in cases such as Bush v. Vera, Shelby County v. Holder, and Fisher v. University of Texas. SFFA's case was the first high-profile case on behalf of plaintiffs who were not white, and who had academic credentials that, according to Vox, were "much harder to criticize". SFFA's lawyers said that the initial hearing focused on discrimination against Asian American applicants, not affirmative action in general.

Certain Asian American advocacy groups filed amicus briefs in support of SFFA, believing that they or their children had been discriminated against in college admissions.{{Cite magazine|title=The Rise and Fall of Affirmative Action|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/15/the-rise-and-fall-of-affirmative-action|last=Hsu|first=Hua|magazine=The New Yorker|language=en|date=October 8, 2018|access-date=May 13, 2020|archive-date=May 13, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200513195605/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/15/the-rise-and-fall-of-affirmative-action|url-status=live}} Other Asian American advocacy groups filed amicus briefs in support of Harvard. On May 15, 2015, a coalition of more than 60 Asian American organizations filed federal complaints against Harvard with the United States Department of Education and Department of Justice. The coalition asked for a civil rights investigation into what it called Harvard's discriminatory admission practices against Asian American applicants.{{cite news|first=Janet|last=Loren|url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/05/15/harvard-faces-admissions-bias-complaint-from-asian-americans/gILV3A3eWCxIGSNzMQUbZK/story.html|title=Harvard faces bias complaint from Asian-American groups|newspaper=The Boston Globe|date=May 15, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150604070108/https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/05/15/harvard-faces-admissions-bias-complaint-from-asian-americans/gILV3A3eWCxIGSNzMQUbZK/story.html |archive-date=June 4, 2015 }} The complaints at the Department of Education were dismissed in July 2015 because Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) had already filed a lawsuit making similar allegations in November 2014.{{Cite web |title=Education Department Dismisses Admissions Complaint {{!}} News {{!}} The Harvard Crimson |url=https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/7/8/admissions-complaint-dismissed-education-department/ |access-date=2023-10-23 |website=www.thecrimson.com|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231124210429/https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/7/8/admissions-complaint-dismissed-education-department/|archive-date=November 24, 2023}}

But in 2017, the coalition resubmitted their complaints to the Department of Justice under the Trump administration. It opened an investigation into allegations against Harvard's policies, and that investigation was ongoing as of February 2020.{{cite web |title=Justice Department Files Amicus Brief Explaining that Harvard's Race-Based Admissions Process Violates Federal Civil-Rights Law |url=https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-amicus-brief-explaining-harvard-s-race-based-admissions-process |website=justice.gov |date=February 25, 2020 |publisher=U.S. Department of Justice|location=Washington, D.C.|accessdate=August 24, 2020 |archive-date=August 24, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200824084104/https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-amicus-brief-explaining-harvard-s-race-based-admissions-process |url-status=live}}

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that Harvard imposed a soft quota of "racial balancing" that artificially depressed the number of Asian American applicants it admitted. The plaintiffs maintained that the proportion of Asians Harvard admitted was suspiciously similar year after year despite dramatic increases in the number of Asian American applicants, as well as the size of the Asian American population.

During the lawsuit, the plaintiffs gained access to Harvard's individualized admissions files from 2014 to 2019 and aggregate data from 2000 to 2019. The plaintiffs also interviewed and deposed numerous Harvard officials. From these sources, the plaintiffs alleged that Harvard admissions officers consistently rated Asian American applicants, as a group, lower than others on "positive personality traits" such as likability, courage, and kindness.{{Cite news|last=Hartocollis|first=Anemona|date=June 15, 2018|title=Harvard Rated Asian-American Applicants Lower on Personality Traits, Suit Says|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html|access-date=May 13, 2020|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=May 11, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200511091752/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html|url-status=live}} The plaintiffs alleged that Asian Americans scored higher than any other racial or ethnic group on other admissions measures like test scores, grades, and extracurricular activities, but the students' personal ratings significantly hampered their admissions chances. The plaintiffs also claimed that alumni interviewers (who, unlike admissions officers within Harvard, actually met the applicants) gave Asian Americans personal ratings comparable to white applicants'. Harvard's admissions staff testified that they did not believe that different racial groups have better personal qualities than others, but nevertheless, Asian applicants as a racial group received consistently weaker personal scores over the period surveyed, and Harvard's admissions office rated Asian Americans with the worst personal qualities of any racial group. African-Americans, on the other hand, consistently scored the lowest on the academic rating but highest on the personal rating.Page 32 of [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1199/222325/20220502145522418_20-1199%2021-707%20SFFA%20Brief%20to%20file%20final.pdf#page32 Brief for Petitioner] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220509170220/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1199/222325/20220502145522418_20-1199%2021-707%20SFFA%20Brief%20to%20file%20final.pdf#page32 |date=May 9, 2022 }}

Peter Arcidiacono, a Duke University economist testifying on the plaintiffs' behalf, concluded that Asian American applicants as a group performed stronger on measures of academic achievement (which he measured using their SAT and ACT scores) and extracurricular activities{{cite web |last=Arcidiacono |first=Peter S. |date=2019 |title=Expert Report of Peter S. Arcidiacono, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard No. 14-cv-14176-ADB (D. Mass) |url=https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Affirmative_Action/Meeting_V/supporting_documents/Doc%20415-8%20-%20(Arcidiacono%20Expert%20Report).pdf |access-date=June 4, 2023 |archive-date=November 1, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221101180305/https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Affirmative_Action/Meeting_V/supporting_documents/Doc%20415-8%20-%20(Arcidiacono%20Expert%20Report).pdf |url-status=live }} but received a statistically significant penalty relative to white applicants in Harvard's "Personal Rating" and "Overall Rating" scores. As a result, the plaintiffs alleged Asian American applicants had the lowest chance of admission of all racial groups, despite scoring highest in all objective measurements. Arcidiacono testified that removing Asian applicants' personal score penalty relative to white applicants would result in a 16% increase in the number of admitted Asian Americans.

Arcidiacono suggested that the applicant's race played a significant role in admissions. According to his testimony, if an Asian American applicant with certain characteristics (like scores, GPAs, and extracurricular activities, family background) had a 25% statistical likelihood of admission, the same applicant, if white, would have a 36% likelihood. Hispanic and Black applicants with the same characteristics would have a 77% and 95% predicted chance of admission, respectively.

Arcidiacono's report also alleged that Harvard's preferential treatment of African-American and Hispanic applicants was not due to its efforts to achieve socioeconomic diversity in its student body, since "Harvard admits more than twice as many non-disadvantaged African-American applicants than disadvantaged African-American applicants". He also argued that if Harvard removed all other factors for admissions preference—racial preferences for underrepresented minorities, penalties against Asian Americans, and legacy and athlete preferences—the number of Asian-Americans admitted would increase by 1,241, or 50%, over six years.

The plaintiffs also claimed that, in 2013, Harvard's Office of Institutional Research found a statistically significant penalty against Asian American applicants in an internal investigation, but had never made the findings public or acted on them. Plaintiffs and commentators compared the treatment of Asians to the early-20th-century Jewish quota, which used immigrant Jews' allegedly "deficient" one-dimensional personalities and lack of leadership traits to justify excluding non-legacy Jews at elite universities, including Harvard.

Harvard denied engaging in discrimination and said its admissions philosophy of considering race as one of many factors in its admissions complied with the law. The school also said that it received more than 40,000 applications, that a large majority of applicants are academically qualified, and as a result, it must consider more than grades and test scores to determine admission for its 2,000 available slots.{{cite web|last=Lawsuit|first=Harvard Admissions|title=Key Points|url=https://www.harvard.edu/admissionscase/key-points/|access-date=2022-02-18|website=Harvard Admissions Lawsuit|language=en-US|archive-date=February 18, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220218213730/https://www.harvard.edu/admissionscase/key-points/|url-status=live}} Harvard said its personal rating reflected "a wide range of valuable information in the application, such as an applicant’s personal essays, responses to short answer questions, recommendations from teachers and guidance counselors, alumni interview reports, staff interviews, and any additional letters or information provided by the applicant".

The school said the proportion of admitted Asian American students had grown from 17% to 21% in a decade, while Asian Americans represent around 6% of the U.S. population.{{cite web |title=Is Harvard Showing Bias Against Asian-Americans? |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/05/20/408240998/is-harvard-showing-bias-against-asian-americans |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181112223519/https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/05/20/408240998/is-harvard-showing-bias-against-asian-americans |archive-date=November 12, 2018 |access-date=May 13, 2020 |website=NPR |language=en}} It said it had studied more than a dozen race-neutral admissions alternatives and found that none promoted "Harvard’s diversity-related educational objectives as well as Harvard’s … admissions program while also maintaining the standards of excellence that Harvard seeks in its student body".

Using the same data given to the plaintiffs, UC Berkeley economist David Card testified on Harvard's behalf and wrote in a report that SFFA's analysis of the personal ratings excluded applications from a sizable proportion of the applicant pool, personal essays, and letters of recommendation from teachers and guidance counselors, and that there was no statistically significant difference in personal scores compared to white students.{{cite web |last=Card |first=David |title=Report of David Card, Ph.D. |url=https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/expert_report_-_2017-12-15_dr._david_card_expert_report_updated_confid_desigs_redacted.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190724041207/https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/expert_report_-_2017-12-15_dr._david_card_expert_report_updated_confid_desigs_redacted.pdf |archive-date=July 24, 2019 |access-date=August 24, 2020 |website=Harvard Projects |publisher=Harvard University}} Card argued that if SFFA's analysis showed that the personal ratings assigned to Asian Americans were unexpectedly poorer, Asian Americans also unexpectedly scored higher on the academic rating than other racial groups, which would add complexity to the claim that Harvard was intentionally discriminating against Asian Americans.{{cite web|last=Card|first=David|date=March 15, 2018|title=Rebuttal Report of David Card, Ph.D.|url=https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/legal_-_card_rebuttal_report_revised_filing.pdf|access-date=February 18, 2022|archive-date=February 18, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220218213734/https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/legal_-_card_rebuttal_report_revised_filing.pdf|url-status=live}} In response to Arcidiacono's analysis, Harvard contended that Arcidiacono had "mined the data to his advantage" by excluding applicants who received preferable treatment due to being legacies, athletes, or the children of staff and faculty, including Asian-Americans. Harvard also argued that the documents the plaintiffs alleged showed discrimination against Asian Americans represented "a preliminary and incomplete analysis" that Harvard's Office of Institutional Research (OIR) conducted "without the benefit of the full admissions database or a full understanding of the admissions process" and that the "OIR documents themselves directly acknowledge various missing data and aspects of the admissions process that are not taken into account".

Various students, alumni, and external groups filed amici briefs on both sides.{{cite web|date=March 27, 2019|title=Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Amicus Brief|url=https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/SFFA-v-Harvard-Amicus-Brief.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327194718/https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/SFFA-v-Harvard-Amicus-Brief.pdf|archive-date=March 27, 2019}}{{cite web|date=July 30, 2018|title=NAACP LDF Amici Curiae Brief|url=https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/cdh_brief.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181109234726/https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/cdh_brief.pdf|archive-date=November 9, 2018|access-date=November 9, 2018}}{{Cite news|last=Walsh|first=Colleen|date=July 31, 2018|title=Standing with Harvard in admissions case|language=en-US|work=Harvard Gazette|url=https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/07/standing-with-harvard-in-admissions-case/|url-status=live|access-date=November 9, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181108191515/https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/07/standing-with-harvard-in-admissions-case/|archive-date=November 8, 2018}}

In 2013, SFFA sued Harvard in U.S. District Court in Boston, arguing that its admission practices were unconstitutional. In 2019, a district court judge upheld Harvard's limited use of race as a factor in admissions, finding that SFFA had provided no evidence that Asian Americans, or any other racial groups, had been harmed by it. In 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. In 2021, SFFA petitioned the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.{{cite news|first=Deirdre|last=Fernandes|date=October 21, 2018|title=Question at center of Harvard trial: What counts as discrimination?|work=The Boston Globe|url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/10/21/question-center-harvard-trial-what-counts-discrimination/vDGQ0yU1uoyix9ZeLGXgRJ/story.html|access-date=March 18, 2019|archive-date=March 29, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190329025257/https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/10/21/question-center-harvard-trial-what-counts-discrimination/vDGQ0yU1uoyix9ZeLGXgRJ/story.html|url-status=live}}

In October 2019, Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that Harvard College's admissions policies did not unduly discriminate against Asian Americans.{{Cite news|last=Hartocollis|first=Anemona|date=February 18, 2020|title=The Affirmative Action Battle at Harvard Is Not Over|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/affirmative-action-harvard.html|access-date=May 13, 2020|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=May 19, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200519190057/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/affirmative-action-harvard.html|url-status=live}} While the system was "not perfect", Burroughs ruled, it nonetheless passed constitutional muster. In her ruling, Burroughs wrote that there were "no quotas" in place at Harvard, despite acknowledging that the school attempted to reach the same level of racial diversity each year and used "the racial makeup of admitted students to help determine how many students it should admit overall".{{Cite web |title=Students for Fair Admissions v. President of Harvard Coll., 397 F. Supp. 3d 126 {{!}} Casetext Search + Citator |url=https://casetext.com/case/students-for-fair-admissions-v-president-of-harvard-coll?sort=relevance&type=case&resultsNav=false&tab=keyword |access-date=2023-10-23 |website=casetext.com}}

In February 2020, SFFA appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The court heard oral arguments in mid-2020 and in late 2020 ruled in Harvard's favor, concluding that Burroughs had not erred in her ruling and major factual findings.{{Cite news|last=Hartocollis|first=Anemona|date=November 12, 2020|title=Harvard Victory Pushes Admissions Case Toward a More Conservative Supreme Court|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/12/us/harvard-affirmative-action.html|access-date=April 2, 2023|archive-date=April 2, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230402052712/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/12/us/harvard-affirmative-action.html|url-status=live}} The Justice Department filed friend-of-the-court briefs in both the initial hearing and the appeal, arguing that Harvard imposed "a racial penalty by systematically disfavoring Asian American applicants".{{Cite news|title=Justice Department argues Harvard's use of race in admissions violates civil rights law|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/02/26/justice-department-argues-harvards-use-race-admissions-violates-civil-rights-law/|last=Anderson|first=Nick|date=February 26, 2020|newspaper=The Washington Post|language=en|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200712064814/https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/02/26/justice-department-argues-harvards-use-race-admissions-violates-civil-rights-law/|archive-date=July 12, 2020|access-date=May 13, 2020}}

SFFA petitioned the Supreme Court to review both the First Circuit's decision in the Harvard case, which focused on the impact of the admissions process on Asian Americans, and a similar decision from the Middle District of North Carolina, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of NC, et al., which focused on the impact on both white and Asian American applicants at the University of North Carolina and which had been decided in the school's favor in 2021. Both petitions sought the court to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger. In Harvard, SFFA asked whether Harvard's admission practices violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act given possible race-neutral selection processes, while in North Carolina, it asked whether a university can reject a race-neutral admission process if it believes it needs to protect the student body's diversity and quality of education.{{Cite news|url=https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/2/25/sffa-scotus-petition/|title=Students for Fair Admissions Petitions SCOTUS to Take Up Suit Against Harvard's Race-Conscious Admissions|newspaper=The Harvard Crimson|access-date=February 28, 2021|archive-date=May 26, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220526135257/https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/2/25/sffa-scotus-petition/|url-status=live}}{{Cite web|url=https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/05/harvard-argues-admissions-suit-isnt-worthy-of-supreme-court-review/|title=Harvard argues admissions suit isn't worthy of Supreme Court review|first=Colleen Walsh Harvard Staff|last=Writer|date=May 17, 2021|access-date=May 18, 2021|archive-date=June 1, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220601053028/https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/05/harvard-argues-admissions-suit-isnt-worthy-of-supreme-court-review/|url-status=live}}

Harvard filed an opposing brief seeking to have the Supreme Court reject SFFA's petition. In June 2021, the Court requested that the U.S. government submit a brief of its stance on the case,{{cite web | url = https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/justices-request-governments-views-on-harvard-affirmative-action-dispute/ | title = Justices request government's views on Harvard affirmative-action dispute | first = Amy | last = Howe | date = June 14, 2021 | accessdate = June 14, 2021 | work = SCOTUSblog | archive-date = May 30, 2022 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220530194528/https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/justices-request-governments-views-on-harvard-affirmative-action-dispute/ | url-status = live }} and in December the Solicitor General of the United States under the Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal.{{Cite news|last=Raymond|first=Nate|date=December 9, 2021|title=Biden administration asks U.S. Supreme Court to reject Harvard affirmative action case|language=en|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-administration-asks-us-supreme-court-reject-harvard-affirmative-action-2021-12-09/|access-date=December 15, 2021|archive-date=May 30, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220530194528/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-administration-asks-us-supreme-court-reject-harvard-affirmative-action-2021-12-09/|url-status=live}}

The Supreme Court certified both petitions on January 24, 2022, and consolidated them under Harvard. After Ketanji Brown Jackson testified during her confirmation hearing that she would recuse herself from the case because she is on the Harvard Board of Overseers, the Supreme Court separated the two cases, allowing her to participate in the UNC case.{{cite web |title=What happened on Day 3 of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearings |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/live-blog/ketanji-brown-jackson-confirmation-hearings-day-3-live-updates-rcna21063?featureFlag=true#rcrd120 |website=NBC News |date=March 24, 2022 |access-date=14 April 2022 |language=en |archive-date=April 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220414210452/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/live-blog/ketanji-brown-jackson-confirmation-hearings-day-3-live-updates-rcna21063?featureFlag=true#rcrd120 |url-status=live }} Both cases were argued on October 31, 2022.{{cite news | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/politics/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-unc.html | title = Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Affirmative Action at Harvard and U.N.C. | first1 = Adam | last1 = Liptak | first2 = Anemona | last2 = Hartocollis | date = January 24, 2022 | accessdate = January 24, 2022 | work = The New York Times | archive-date = February 1, 2022 | archive-url = https://archive.today/20220201022550/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/politics/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-unc.html | url-status = live }}

The Court received 33 amicus briefs in support of SFFA and 60 in support of Harvard and UNC.{{cite web | url = https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/a-guide-to-the-amicus-briefs-in-the-affirmative-action-cases/ | title = A guide to the amicus briefs in the affirmative-action cases | first1 = Ellena | last1 = Erskine | first2 = Angie | last2 = Gou | first3 = Elisabeth | last3 = Snyder | date = October 29, 2022 | accessdate = October 30, 2022 | work = SCOTUSBlog | archive-date = October 29, 2022 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20221029232502/https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/a-guide-to-the-amicus-briefs-in-the-affirmative-action-cases/ | url-status = live }}

Among those in support of SFFA, 14 senators and 68 representatives, as well as 19 states, wrote that Grutter was inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause. Others wrote that Harvard's and the University of North Carolina's admission policies were discriminatory because any favoritism toward one race resulted in discrimination against others. Other SFFA-supporting briefs, including those by the Cato Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation, argued that affirmative action policies are generally arbitrary, do not enhance diversity on campuses, and violate the allowance for federal funding under Title VI.

In support of the universities, both the Biden administration and several current and former senators wrote that historically, both the legislative and executive branches used affirmative action to combat racial imbalances and did not intend to violate Title VI. Sixty-five senators and representatives wrote that despite Brown and Grutter, segregation at K–12 schools continued to worsen, and affirmative action was needed to fight racial imbalance. Several groups, including the American Bar Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that racial diversity is essential in college and beyond.

Several other Asian American groups submitted amicus briefs in support of race-conscious admissions policies and Harvard. They included the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, representing itself and 44 other Asian American groups and higher education faculty, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles, representing several Asian American students.{{cite web |title=Amici File Briefs in Support of Harvard |url=https://admissionscase.harvard.edu/news/amici-file-briefs-support-harvard-groups-emphasize-importance-diversity-created |website=Harvard Admissions Case |publisher=Harvard University |accessdate=August 24, 2020 |archive-date=September 7, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200907154246/https://admissionscase.harvard.edu/news/amici-file-briefs-support-harvard-groups-emphasize-importance-diversity-created |url-status=live }} The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a brief in support of Harvard, representing 25 Harvard student and alumni organizations consisting of "thousands of Asian American, Black, Latino, Native American, and white students and alumni".

File:Official roberts CJ.jpg delivered the opinion of the Court]]

Harvard and North Carolina were decided jointly on June 29, 2023, with the Court ruling that race-based admissions adopted by both Harvard University and UNC were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Jackson recused herself in Harvard, resulting in a 6–2 vote, and dissented in North Carolina, resulting in a 6–3 vote there.{{cite web |date=2023-06-29 |title=Supreme Court guts affirmative action in college admissions |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/29/supreme-court-ends-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions-00104179 |access-date=2023-06-29 |website=POLITICO |language=en |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629155936/https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/29/supreme-court-ends-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions-00104179 |url-status=live }} The majority opinion, by Roberts, stated that the use of race was not a compelling interest, and the means by which the schools attempted to achieve diversity (tracking bare racial statistics) bore little or no relationship to the purported goals (viewpoint and intellectual diversity and developing a diverse future leadership). But Roberts said that prohibiting the use of race in admissions did not stop universities from considering a student's discussion of how their race had affected their life "so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university".{{cite news |date=2023-06-29 |title=Supreme Court bans colleges from considering race in admissions |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/supreme-court-strike-affirmative-action-university-b2366556.html |access-date=2023-06-29 |website=The Independent |language=en |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629155033/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/supreme-court-strike-affirmative-action-university-b2366556.html |url-status=live }}

In an unusual move, both Thomas and Sotomayor read parts of their opinions from the bench as part of the announcement of the decision.{{cite news | url = https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-livestream-opinions-dissents-rcna91859 | title = Lack of audio for affirmative action opinions shows court transparency fail | first = Jordan | last = Rubin | date = June 29, 2023 | accessdate = July 1, 2023 | work = MSNBC }} Thomas's reading of his concurrence was the first time any justice had read a concurring opinion from the bench in almost 10 years.{{Cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/2023/07/09/1186274177/supreme-court-dissents-and-rejoinders-with-respect-and-disrespect|first=Nina|last=Totenberg|title=Supreme Court dissents and rejoinders, with respect and disrespect|website=NPR |date=July 9, 2023|access-date=August 12, 2023}}

In the majority opinion, Roberts wrote that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause applies "without regard to any difference of race, of color, or of nationality" and thus must apply to every person. Therefore, he wrote, "Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it", adding, "For '[t]he guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.{{'}} " Roberts wrote that the affirmative action programs "lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today".

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh each submitted a concurring opinion. In his concurrence, Thomas laid out an originalist argument for the "colorblind constitution" and cited statistics that indicate race-conscious admissions to universities come at the expense of a student's individual value. Thomas also wrote:

{{Blockquote|text=While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law.}}Although Gorsuch joined the majority opinion, his concurrence emphasized that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bars affirmative action. That statute barred discrimination "on the ground of" race, so Gorsuch reasoned that affirmative action was forbidden by statute regardless of any constitutional arguments.{{Cite web |last=Gorsuch |first=Neil |date=June 29, 2023 |title=Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf |website=Supreme Court of the United States}}

In a dissenting opinion joined by Kagan and Jackson, Sotomayor wrote: "Ignoring race will not equalize a society that is racially unequal. What was true in the 1860s, and again in 1954, is true today: Equality requires acknowledgment of inequality." She wrote that the majority opinion's "interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is not only contrary to precedent and the entire teachings of our history ... but is also grounded in the illusion that racial inequality was a problem of a different generation."

In a separate dissenting opinion, Jackson wrote:

{{Blockquote|text=With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces "colorblindness for all" by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life...It would be deeply unfortunate if the Equal Protection Clause actually demanded this perverse, ahistorical, and counterproductive outcome. To impose this result in that Clause's name when it requires no such thing, and to thereby obstruct our collective progress toward the full realization of the Clause's promise, is truly a tragedy for all of us.}}

Jackson's dissent was criticized for claiming that "for high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die."{{cite news |last1=Frank |first1=Ted |title=Justice Jackson's Incredible Statistic |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-jacksons-incredible-statistic-black-newborns-doctors-math-flaw-mortality-4115ff62|access-date=7 July 2023 |work=Wall Street Journal|date=5 July 2023}} Jackson based this claim on an amicus brief that misrepresented the findings of a study examining mortality rates in Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015.

{{Over-quotation|section=y|date=June 2023}}

Then-former President Donald Trump said at the time, "This is a great day for America. People with extraordinary ability and everything else necessary for success, including future greatness for our country, are finally being rewarded. This is the ruling everyone was waiting and hoping for."{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/affirmative-action-republican-reactions.html |title=The G.O.P. presidential field is hailing the dismantling of affirmative action. |date=June 29, 2023 |last1=Vigdor |first1=Neil |last2=Weisman |first2=Jonathan |work=The New York Times |access-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629164300/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/affirmative-action-republican-reactions.html |url-status=live }}{{Cite news |last=Bernstein |first=Sharon |date=2023-06-30 |title=Affirmative action: Reactions to the US Supreme Court ruling |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/reactions-us-supreme-court-ruling-affirmative-action-2023-06-29/ |access-date=2023-06-30}} Former vice president Mike Pence said, "There is no place for discrimination based on race in the United States, and I am pleased that the Supreme Court has put an end to this egregious violation of civil and constitutional rights in admissions processes, which only served to perpetuate racism."

Florida Governor and 2024 presidential candidate Ron DeSantis said, "College admissions should be based on merit and applicants should not be judged on their race or ethnicity. The Supreme Court has correctly upheld the Constitution and ended discrimination by colleges and universities." 2024 presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy wrote on social media that "affirmative action is a badly failed experiment: time to put a nail in the coffin & restore colorblind meritocracy."{{Cite web |last=Axelrod |first=Tal |date=June 29, 2023 |title=Biden, Obamas, Trump and more react to Supreme Court restricting affirmative action |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lawmakers-react-supreme-court-restricting-affirmative-action-historic/story?id=100483183 |access-date=2023-06-30 |website=ABC News |language=en}}

Republican Senators Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton, Tim Scott, and Marsha Blackburn each voiced their support for the decision.{{cite web |title=Racial Discrimination Has No Place in College Admissions {{!}} Republican Leader |url=https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/racial-discrimination-has-no-place-in-college-admissions |access-date=2023-06-29 |website=www.republicanleader.senate.gov |language=en |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629193414/https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/racial-discrimination-has-no-place-in-college-admissions |url-status=live }}

File:President Biden Delivers Remarks on the Supreme Court's Decision on Affirmative Action.webm

File:I was one of few Black students in class at times at Princeton, but affirmative action didn't benefit just me. It benefitted those around me. Diversity... - By Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell.webm, the attorney general of Massachusetts, reacts to the decision]]

In a speech, President Joe Biden said, "This is not a normal court" and that the United States needed "a new path forward that is consistent with the law."{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/29/us/affirmative-action-supreme-court/f59016ca-308a-55cb-9c52-aeb9b5946cb7 |title=Biden took a long pause before leaving as a reporter asked whether "this is a broken court." |date=June 29, 2023 |last=Kanno-Youngs |first=Zolan |work=The New York Times |author-link=Zolan Kanno-Youngs |access-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629172330/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/29/us/affirmative-action-supreme-court/f59016ca-308a-55cb-9c52-aeb9b5946cb7 |url-status=live }}

Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer said, "The Supreme Court ruling has put a giant roadblock in our country's march toward racial justice." Other Congressional Democrats, such as Senator Cory Booker, House Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Congressman Hank Johnson, voiced their disagreement with the decision.{{cite news |last=Vazquez |first=Maegan |date=June 29, 2023 |title=Jeffries accuses conservative justices of 'jamming their right-wing ideology' down Americans' throats |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/06/29/supreme-court-student-loan-forgiveness-affirmative-action/#link-24Y547WCWNAQZJ5DNWGCDMLSME |url-status=live |access-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629134541/https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/06/29/supreme-court-student-loan-forgiveness-affirmative-action/#link-24Y547WCWNAQZJ5DNWGCDMLSME |archive-date=June 29, 2023}}

Former president Barack Obama said, "Like any policy, affirmative action wasn't perfect. But it allowed generations of students like Michelle and me to prove we belonged. Now it's up to all of us to give young people the opportunities they deserve—and help students everywhere benefit from new perspectives." Former First Lady Michelle Obama said, "My heart breaks for any young person out there who's wondering what their future holds—and what kinds of chances will be open to them."

NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson said, "affirmative action exists because we cannot rely on colleges, universities, and employers to enact admissions and hiring practices that embrace diversity, equity and inclusion" and "Race plays an undeniable role in shaping the identities of and quality of life for Black Americans. In a society still scarred by the wounds of racial disparities, the Supreme Court has displayed a willful ignorance of our reality."

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law President and Executive Director Damon Hewitt said: "No matter what this court says, we will continue to fight. No matter what this court says, nothing can deprive us of what we call a race conscious future. The future that we deserve, the future that students deserve. Because affirmative action and holistic admissions is not a handout. It's not even really a hand up. It is what students deserve when they bring their whole selves to the table".

Students for Fair Admissions founder Edward Blum called the ruling "the beginning of the restoration of the colorblind legal covenant that binds together our multi-racial, multi-ethnic nation", adding, "These discriminatory admission practices undermined the integrity of our country's civil rights laws".{{Cite news |date=2023-06-29 |title=Affirmative action: US Supreme Court overturns race-based college admissions |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65886212 |access-date=2023-06-29 |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629181858/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65886212 |url-status=live }}

University of California President Michael V. Drake said in a statement that the ruling ended a "valuable practice that has helped higher education institutions increase diversity and address historical wrongs over the past several decades". University of Southern California president Carol Folt said "we will not go backward" and "This decision will not impact our commitment to creating a campus that is welcoming, diverse, and inclusive to talented individuals from every background". Johns Hopkins University President Ron Daniels called the court's ruling a "significant setback in our efforts to build a university community that represents the rich diversity of America". Rice University officials called the ruling "disappointing".{{Cite web |last=Singh |first=Simrin |date=2023-06-29 |title=Harvard, universities across U.S. react to Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-affirmative-action-ruling-universities-react-harvard-north-carolina/ |access-date=2023-06-30 |website=CBS News |language=en-US}}

Columbia University spokesperson Ben Chang said, "Diversity is a positive force across every dimension of Columbia, and we can and must find a durable and meaningful path to preserve it". The University of Pennsylvania said, "In full compliance with the Supreme Court's decision, we will seek ways to admit individual students who will contribute to the kind of exceptional community that is essential to Penn's educational mission".

Rutgers Law School Vice Dean Stacy Hawkins said that despite the ruling, colleges and universities can continue to employ "race-neutral" means to promote diversity, such as increased consideration of socioeconomic status and targeting certain schools for recruitment, both of which are said to correlate with race and ethnicity. Institutions in California and Florida have already adopted similar methods, because they are not allowed to consider race and ethnicity under state law.{{Cite web |last=Alexander |first=Andrea |date=5 June 2023 |title=Is Affirmative Action Over? The Potential Impact of Two Supreme Court Challenges Explained |url=https://www.rutgers.edu/news/affirmative-action-over-potential-impact-two-supreme-court-challenges-explained |website=Rutgers University}}

Attorney General Merrick Garland wrote in a statement: "the Department of Justice remains committed to promoting student diversity in higher education using all available legal tools. In the coming weeks, we will work with the Department of Education to provide resources to college and universities on what admissions practices and programs remain lawful following the Court’s decision."

Michael Wang, whom USA Today called "a poster child for the anti-affirmative action movement" who had filed discrimination complaints against three universities with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights in 2013 and met with SFFA's founder, later said, "a part of me regrets what I've put forward". Wang clarified that he did not regret filing his three original complaints and that while he was not "anti-affirmative action", he supported reforming it.{{Cite web |title=As Supreme Court considers affirmative action, a former critic of the policy voices regret |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2023/05/31/affirmative-action-critic-has-regrets/70263878007/ |access-date=2023-06-30 |website=USA Today |language=en-US}}

America First Legal, a conservative litigation outfit headed by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, sent letters to more than 200 U.S. law schools within days of the Court's ruling threatening them with lawsuits unless they immediately terminated all race and sex preferences in student admissions, faculty hiring, and law-review membership or article selection.{{Cite news |title=Conservative legal group threatens to sue law schools over racial preferences |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/conservative-legal-group-threatens-sue-law-schools-over-racial-preferences-2023-07-05/|access-date=July 8, 2023 |website=Reuters |date=July 5, 2023 |language=en-US |last1=Sloan |first1=Karen }}

A 2023 Pew Research Center poll found that most Americans disapproved of the use of race and ethnicity in college admissions.{{Cite web |title=More Americans Disapprove Than Approve of Colleges Considering Race, Ethnicity in Admissions Decisions |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/08/more-americans-disapprove-than-approve-of-colleges-considering-race-ethnicity-in-admissions-decisions/ |access-date=2023-06-08 |website=Pew Research Center |date=June 8, 2023 |language=en-US}}

Outgoing president of Harvard University Lawrence Bacow said that Harvard would comply with the law but remained steadfast in its belief that "deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences".{{cite news |last=Anderson |first=Nick |date=June 29, 2023 |title=After ruling takes Harvard to task, university pledges to comply with law |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/06/29/supreme-court-student-loan-forgiveness-affirmative-action/#link-ZO6ZBDZLBRELTETEEWAUMF2WRE |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629134541/https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/06/29/supreme-court-student-loan-forgiveness-affirmative-action/#link-ZO6ZBDZLBRELTETEEWAUMF2WRE |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |access-date=June 29, 2023 |newspaper=The Washington Post}} The University of North Carolina also said it would comply with the law but was disappointed by the decision.

In August 2024, MIT was the first major private college to release data on the ethnic makeup of its new freshman class.{{Cite web |date=2024-09-05 |title=The Real Story Behind the Demographic Swings in MIT Admissions |url=https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-real-story-behind-the-demographic-swings-in-mit-admissions#:~:text=The%20Massachusetts%20Institute%20of%20Technology,of%20the%20class%20of%202028. |access-date=2025-03-03 |website=fedsoc.org}} It showed a drop-off in Black and Latino students, while Asians made a significant gain.{{Cite news |last1=Hartocollis |first1=Anemona |last2=Saul |first2=Stephanie |date=2024-08-21 |title=At M.I.T., Black and Latino Enrollment Drops Sharply After Affirmative Action Ban |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/21/us/mit-black-latino-enrollment-affirmative-action.html?unlocked_article_code=1.E04.XIdB.pYEcc3qYnyt0&smid=em-share |access-date=2024-08-28 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}

In September 2024, Harvard University released data on the ethnic makeup of its class of 2028, showing a 4% decrease in Black enrollment, a 2% increase in Hispanic or Latino enrollment, and no change in Asian American enrollment compared to the class of 2027.{{cite news |last1=Riley |first1=Neal |date=September 11, 2024 |title=Harvard reports drop in Black enrollment after Supreme Court affirmative action ruling |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/harvard-admissions-black-supreme-court-affirmative-action/ |access-date=2024-09-12 |agency=CBS News}} Notably, the College did not provide a figure for students who identified as white and reported that 8% of class members did not report a race or identity, twice the previous year's percentage.{{Cite web |last=Rosenberg |first=John |date=2024-09-11 |title=Harvard Class of 2028 Demographics Disclosed {{!}} Harvard Magazine |url=https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2024/09/harvard-college-admissions-data-demographics?link_id=3&can_id=bf64d871b3bbf510bf31b3f566c37cbd&source=email-alarming-drops-in-black-and-native-american-student-enrollment-at-harvard-while-results-at-other-colleges-are-mixed&email_referrer=email_2450551&email_subject=alarming-drops-in-black-and-native-american-student-enrollment-at-harvard-while-results-at-other-colleges-are-mixed |access-date=2024-09-15 |website=www.harvardmagazine.com |language=en}}

For the same freshman class, other major universities saw mixed results. At Columbia, "The share of Black or African American students also sank [...] from 20 percent last year to 12 percent this fall. The number of Latino and Hispanic students declined from 22 percent to 19 percent this year, while those identifying as Asian American or Pacific Islander rose from 30 percent to 39 percent."{{Cite news |last=Svrluga |first=Susan |date=September 11, 2024 |title=Harvard's Black enrollment drops after Supreme Court ruling |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/09/11/harvard-black-enrollment-drop-affirmative-action/}} At Brown, the percentage of students identifying as non-Hispanic white decrease from 46 to 43 percent, as Asian increase from 29 to 33 percent, as Hispanic or Latino decrease from 14 to 10 percent, as non-Hispanic Black or African American decrease from 15 to 9 percent, and as American Indian or Alaska Native decrease from 2 to 1.5 percent. Further, the percentage of students who did not report their race increased from 4 to 7 percent.{{Cite web |title=At Brown University, Black freshman enrollment drops 40% |url=https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2024/09/at-brown-university-black-freshman-enrollment-drops-40 |access-date=2024-09-16 |website=The Brown Daily Herald |language=en-US}} At Yale, Asian enrollment dropped by six percentage points, Black and Native American enrollment remained stable, white enrollment increased by four percentage points, and Latino enrollment increased by one percentage point.{{Cite web |last=Talbert |first=Hailey |date=2024-09-04 |title=In first Yale class since the end of affirmative action, Black and Latine enrollment share remains stable, while Asian American decreases |url=https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2024/09/04/in-first-yale-class-since-the-end-of-affirmative-action-black-and-latine-enrollment-share-remains-stable-while-asian-american-decreases/ |access-date=2024-09-16 |website=Yale Daily News |language=en}} At Princeton, Asian enrollment dropped by 2.2 percentage points. At the same time, Hispanic and Latino enrollment dropped one percentage point and Black enrollment shifted by less than one percent.{{Cite web |title=Princeton enrollment untouched by affirmative action ban |url=https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2024/09/princeton-enrollment-untouched-by-affirmative-action-ban |access-date=2024-09-16 |website=The Princetonian |language=en-US}} Some experts say "it may take years to see the definitive impact of the decision."{{Cite web |date=2024-09-12 |title=Asian Americans see mixed results in enrollment after end of affirmative action |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/affirmative-action-enrollment-asian-americans-rcna170716 |access-date=2024-09-16 |website=NBC News |language=en}}

Will Hild, director of the conservative advocacy group Consumers' Research said that Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard puts a "wind in the sail" of groups that seek to end diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.{{cite news |last1=Mark |first1=Julian |last2=Tan |first2=Eli |date=June 29, 2023 |title=Affirmative action ruling puts a target on corporate diversity programs |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/06/29/affirmative-action-business-diversity/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629170419/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/06/29/affirmative-action-business-diversity/ |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |access-date=June 29, 2023 |newspaper=The Washington Post}} Although the case regards education, employers may reassess their policies, according to former Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawyer Stephen Paskoff.{{cite news |last=Moreno |first=J. Edward |date=June 29, 2023 |title=The ruling could set the stage for challenges to corporate diversity programs. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/29/us/affirmative-action-supreme-court/the-ruling-could-set-the-stage-for-challenges-to-corporate-diversity-programs |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629171741/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/29/us/affirmative-action-supreme-court/the-ruling-could-set-the-stage-for-challenges-to-corporate-diversity-programs |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |access-date=June 29, 2023 |work=The New York Times}}

As of January 2025, Walmart, John Deere, Harley-Davidson, McDonald's, Meta and Amazon stated their intention to end DEI initiatives at their companies following the Supreme Court ruling.{{Cite news |last=Durbin |first=Dee-Ann |date=January 6, 2025 |title=McDonald’s is the latest company to roll back diversity goals |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard&veaction=edit§ion=22 |access-date=January 7, 2025 |work=Associated Press}}{{Cite news |date=January 10, 2025 |title=Meta announces end of its DEI programs. Read the memo. |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/meta-announces-end-dei-programs-read-memo-rcna187207 |access-date=January 10, 2025 |work=NBC News}}{{cite web | url = https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/10/amazon-halt-dei-programs-.html | title = Amazon to halt some of its DEI programs: Internal memo | first = Annie | last = Palmer | date = January 10, 2025 | accessdate = January 10, 2025 | work = CNBC }} Other companies, such as Costco and Apple, affirmed their support for ongoing DEI programs when challenged by shareholders.{{cite web | url = https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/27/business/costco-dei/index.html | title = Costco is pushing back — hard — against the anti-DEI movement | first = Nathaniel | last = Meyersohn | date = December 27, 2024 | accessdate = January 10, 2025 | work = CNN }}{{cite web | url = https://deadline.com/2025/01/apple-ceo-tim-cook-2024-compensation-million-1236254087/ | title = Dade | last = Hayes | date = January 10, 2025 | accessdate = January 11, 2025 | work = Deadline Hollywood }}

Since Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard, several lower courts have declined to extend the ruling to military academies, instead holding that military academies, including the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy, may continue to consider race in admissions because of the compelling national security interest in a diverse officer corps.{{Cite news |last=Mulvaney |first=Erin |date=2024-12-07 |title=Naval Academy Can Use Race in Admissions, Judge Rules |url=https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/naval-academy-can-use-race-in-admissions-judge-rules-d7bf9718?mod=lead_feature_below_a_pos2 |work=The Wall Street Journal}} In April 2025, U.S. military academies ended affirmative action in admissions.{{Cite news |last=Raymond |first=Nate |date=April 11, 2025 |title=US military academies end race consideration in admissions |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-air-force-academy-under-trump-ends-race-consideration-admissions-2025-04-11/ |access-date=April 13, 2025 |work=Reuters}}{{Cite news |last=Cochran |first=Lexi Lonas |date=April 11, 2025 |title=Air Force Academy no longer considering race in admissions |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5245007-air-force-academy-affirmative-action-race-admissions/ |access-date=April 13, 2025 |work=The Hill (newspaper)}}

{{Notelist}}

{{Reflist}}

• {{Cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf |title=Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard |date=June 29, 2023 |publisher=Supreme Court of the United States |access-date=June 29, 2023 |ref={{Harvid|Supreme Court of the United States|2023}}}}

• {{cite book |first1=Thomas J. |last1=Espenshade |authorlink=Thomas Espenshade |first2=Alexandria Walton |last2=Radford |title=No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life |location= |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=2010 |isbn=978-0-691-14160-2 }}
• {{cite journal |first=Vinay |last=Harpalani |title=Asian Americans, Racial Stereotypes, and Elite University Admissions Diversity and Inclusion Issue |journal=Boston University Law Review |year=2022 |volume=102 |issue=1 |pages=233–326 |url=https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2022/03/HARPALANI.pdf }}
• {{cite journal |first=Cara |last=McClellan |title=When Claims Collide: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the Meaning of Discrimination |journal=Loyola University Chicago Law Journal |volume=Forthcoming |year=2023 |ssrn=4465275 |url=https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4014&context=faculty_scholarship }}
• {{cite journal | first1 = Maimon | last1 = Schwarzschild | first2 = Gail L. | last2 = Heriot | title = Race Preferences, Diversity, and Students for Fair Admissions: A New Day, a New Clarity | journal = SMU Law Review | year = 2024 | volume = 77 | pages = 285–303 | doi = 10.25172/smulr.77.1.10 | ssrn = 4696900 | doi-access = free }}

{{Wikisource|Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College}}

• [https://admissionscase.harvard.edu/ Harvard's Website Regarding The Case]{{Dead link|date=March 2025}}
• [https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/updates/ SFFA Lawsuit Updates]
• [https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=14188 Case Profile: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard]

{{Affirmative action in the United States}}

{{US14thAmendment|equalprotection}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard}}

Category:2023 in United States case law

Category:Asian-American history

Category:Higher education case law

Category:History of Harvard University

Category:Politics and race in the United States

Category:Race and education in the United States

Category:United States affirmative action case law

Category:United States equal protection case law

Category:United States racial discrimination case law

Category:United States Supreme Court cases

Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court

Category:University and college admissions in the United States

Category:Articles containing video clips

Category:Opposition to affirmative action

Category:African-American–Asian-American relations