Case Summary

While it may seem obvious that scholastic achievements should be merit-based rather than race-based, that isn’t always the case.

At Harvard, race is a part of the process and their policies have resulted in fewer Asian Americans being admitted even as the number of qualified Asian American candidates grew.  

Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued the school arguing their policies discriminate against Asian Americans and violate civil rights. SFFA seeks to “restore the original principles of our nation’s civil rights movement” and argues race and ethnicity should neither harm nor help a student gain university admission. 

Mountain States Legal Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief supporting SFFA’s lawsuit because Harvard’s admissions system is unconstitutional. Equality under the law should be protected, rather than race trumping merit. 

Join the Fight

Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.

Donate Now



1st Circuit Court of Appeals

Case History

Students for Fair Admissions, an association of 20,000 students, parents and others concerned by racial classifications in college admissions, filed suit against Harvard in 2014 for discriminating against Asian Americans. 

The U.S. District Court of the District of Massachusetts heard the case, Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard, in 2018 and ruled in Harvard’s favor. Now SFFA is appealing that decision at the First Circuit Court of Appeals. 

If they lose, Harvard and other colleges and universities will be able to continue denying admission to students based on race or ethnicity. 

In February 2020, MSLF filed an amicus curiae brief supporting SFFA’s position that using race as a factor for college admissions is unconstitutional and perpetuates racial discrimination. MSLF urges the First Circuit to reverse the District Court ruling regarding Harvard’s discriminatory admissions process. 

Equality under the law is an essential protection. For many years, MSLF has fought in court against government policies that perpetuate race-based discrimination through efforts to stop racial discrimination.  

The foundation’s efforts resulted in a landmark Supreme Court victory in Adarand Constructors, Inc. V. Pena

Currently, MSLF is litigating on behalf of Andrew Brigida against the federal government, because a racially motivated, biographical questionnaire prevented him from being hired by the Federal Aviation Administration. Brigida was an exceptional ATC candidate and scored a perfect 100 on the test the FAA used before introducing the questionnaire. 

Press Releases
Case Documents
Explore More

Biographical Questions Forced Top ATC Candidates Out of FAA Hiring Pool

“The number of different high school sports I participated in.”
“The age at which I first started to earn money (other than an allowance).”
Strange questions to ask would-be air traffic controllers. Yet those questions and others were ones the Federal Aviation Administration asked potential air traffic controllers to answer as part of a new hiring system in 2013.

Coronavirus Gun Store Shutdown

Even in an emergency, constitutionally-protected rights must be defended. New Mexico’s governor shut down the state’s firearms retailers as part of her emergency orders designed to stop the spread of COVID-19.

Get the latest updates from MSLF
News Updates