Case Summary
While it may seem obvious that scholastic achievements should be merit-based rather than race-based, that isn’t true at numerous American colleges and universities. Schools of higher education have for too long been permitted to legally discriminate against qualified student applicants in order to benefit less-qualified applicants of favored racial or ethnic groups.
Students for Fair Admissions is challenging the constitutionality of admission policies at the University of North Carolina that are not based strictly on test scores or merit, but favor certain applicants based purely on the color of an applicant’s skin. That arguably violates the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit discriminatory policies of the kind too many American universities and colleges, both private and public, continue to practice.
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.
Supreme Court of the United States- Oral Argument
To review the transcript or learn more, please click here.
Case History
This is a companion lawsuit to SFFA v. Harvard, which is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and raises similar constitutional questions. The Harvard case challenges racial preferences at the nation’s oldest private college; this case challenges all-but-identical admission policies at the nation’s oldest public college. MSLF believes discriminatory admissions policies are abhorrent and unconstitutional in both cases.
Section 1, Clause 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §2000d) states:
“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
It doesn’t take a PhD from UNC to conclude, based on the clear wording and meaning of both laws, that the race-based admissions policies practiced by these two schools clearly contradict the letter and spirit of both laws.
As the Supreme Court has said before, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. “Our Constitution is color-blind,” as Justice Harlan’s famous dissent stated in Plessy v. Ferguson. The same should be true for university admissions offices.
Current case law has led to wildly vacillating federal positions on race issues in American schools. Obama reversed Bush, Trump reversed Obama, and now Biden is reversing Trump’s work ending discrimination in schools in favor of race-conscious equity and diversity programs. Students and schools deserve to know whether their activity implicates core principles of non-discrimination, or whether it’s perfectly fine to use race as a factor in a host of decisions – starting with admissions.
Discriminatory admissions policies are wrong at private schools. They’re wrong at public schools. They’re just plain wrong, not to mention unconstitutional. It’s time to end, once and for all, one of the last forms of “acceptable” and government-approved racial discrimination in America.
Case Timeline
- Nov. 17, 2014, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the University of North Carolina (UNC).
- On Mar. 20, 2015, the parties filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal of a subset of the plaintiff’s claims.
- Jun. 30, 2015, a series of individual UNC students and parents of students intending to apply to UNC moved to intervene on behalf of the defendants. The intervenors identified themselves as African American, Black, Moorish, Indian, and Hispanic.
- Jul. 6, 2015, the defendants moved to stay the proceedings in light of the Supreme Court’s pending decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Although the plaintiff initially opposed the motion, the parties filed a joint motion to partially stay proceedings on Sept. 30. They sought partial stay of the proceedings pending the resolution of Fisher in the Supreme Court, but on the condition that defendants produce “certain agreed-upon materials.” The court granted the partial stay motion and then stayed all proceedings on Oct. 1.
- Jun. 23, 2016 – The Supreme Court decided Fisher, holding that the University of Texas’ use of race in the admissions process did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 136 S. Ct. 2198.
- Aug. 1, 2016 – The court here lifted the stay and discovery continued.
- Jan. 13, 2017 – The court granted permissive intervention to the current and prospective students.
- On Oct. 25, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiff brought suit as “an organizational plaintiff asserting representational standing” but did not meet its burden of showing its members had “indicia of membership in an organization.” The court held on Sep. 29, 2018, that the “indicia of membership” test did not apply to Students for Fair Admission, since it was a voluntary membership association with actual members. The court held that Students for Fair Admission had standing because four of its members were recent high school graduates who had applied to the University of North Carolina and were denied admission.
- On Jan. 18, 2019, the defendants moved for summary judgement, arguing that the University employed a narrowly tailored admissions policy, using the type of holistic review endorsed by the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on Mar. 4, 2019, asking the court to find as a matter of law that the University’s admissions policy was not narrowly tailored.
- Sep. 30, 2019, Judge Biggs denied both motions for summary judgement. She found that there was an issue of material fact regarding UNC’s use of race as a “plus” factor. UNC presented evidence that their system, which lists “background” as a factor in admissions decisions but does not assign points to students based on their race or ethnicity as it does with other categories, takes the kind of holistic approach endorsed by the Supreme Court. UNC presented expert evidence based on four years of admissions decisions that their approach considers each student individually. The plaintiffs presented conflicting expert evidence, which they claimed showed that race was a predominant factor in admissions decisions
- A bench trial was held on May 11, 2020
- November 11, 2021 – Petition for writ of certiorari filed
- December 14, 2021 – MSLF filed an Amici on behalf of Former Officials of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights
- January 24, 2022 – Petition for Writ was GRANTED and Harvard (20-1199) and UNC (21-707) are combined
- October 31, 2022 – Oral Argument heard before SCOTUS, along with Harvard
- June 29, 2023: Supreme Court handed down a decision in favor of Students for Fair Admissions and put an end to affirmative action.
