Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
The Supreme Court reviewed the admissions processes of Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, which considered race as a factor. The Court found these processes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision emphasized that race-based admissions must be narrowly tailored and have a clear endpoint.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
The Court held that Harvard's and UNC's admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Equal Protection is relevant to Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
The case directly addresses whether the race-based admissions programs at Harvard and UNC violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The question presented is whether the admissions systems used by Harvard College and UNC are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
Why Standing is relevant to Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
The Court discusses whether Students for Fair Admissions has standing to bring the case, which is essential for the Court's jurisdiction.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Because SFFA complies with the standing requirements for organizational plaintiffs articulated by this Court in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U. S. 333, SFFA's obligations under Article III are satisfied, and this Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of SFFA's claims.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
The Court exercises judicial review to evaluate the constitutionality of the universities' admissions programs under the Equal Protection Clause.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Respondents fail to operate their race-based admissions programs in a manner that is 'sufficiently measurable to permit judicial [review]' under the rubric of strict scrutiny.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College that support the summary and concepts above.
Harvard's and UNC's admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.
Respondents' admissions programs are infirm for a second reason as well: They require stereotyping.
