Issues and Cases

University of Texas is flouting the Constitution with race-based admissions

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin


Contact: Joshua P. Thompson

Status: PLF's amicus brief in support of petitioner was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 13, 2015. Oral argument held Dec. 9, 2015. On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the University of Texas at Austin’s admissions policy that discriminates on the basis of color.

Summary:
Fisher Equality Under the Law caseThis case asks whether the admissions policies and procedures at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) which grant preferences to students of certain races and ethnic backgrounds violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In its amicus brief, PLF argues that, in order to survive strict scrutiny analysis, race-conscious undergraduate admissions policies must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling governmental interest. For instance, with respect to the narrow tailoring prong, before resorting to race-conscious undergraduate admissions policies, there must be a showing that race-neutral alternatives failed. Here, the university adopted race-conscious policies in spite of successful race-neutral alternatives and they will continue on indefinitely.

The facts that give rise to the case are summarized as follows: In 1996, the Texas Legislature adopted the "Top Ten Percent" law, a race-neutral undergraduate admissions policy to increase minority enrollment. The law promised every student who graduated in the top 10 percent of a Texas high school a seat at one of the campuses of the University of Texas. At UT, the race-neutral policy had a positive effect on minority enrollment. Nonetheless, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), which held that race could be used as one of many factors in admitting students to the University of Michigan School of Law, the Regents of the University of Texas system modified the admissions policy, authorizing each school to decide whether to consider an applicant’s race. In 2004, UT modified its undergraduate admissions policy to include consideration of an applicant’s race in some circumstances. Students denied admission to UT sued, arguing that the race-conscious admissions policy violated their rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

For recent posts on this case, check out the PLF Liberty Blog.
 

PLF Testimonial

"Most people wouldn't stick it out, and since PLF is litigating for principle, we have to thank PLF for doing what they do."
Trevor Burrus, Research Fellow at CATO Institute

Connect with Us       Donate to PLF


PLF Client Highlight

"PLF allowed me to keep operating my business, even in the midst of a crisis. My business means the world to me and my family - PLF saved it for us. Thank you."
R.J. Bruner, Wildcat Moving Co.

Connect with Us       Donate to PLF


PLF Client Highlight

"A 20 year battle is over, thanks to Pacific Legal Foundation.  My father would be proud. Thank you PLF for your support."
Coy Jr. and Linda Koontz

Connect with Us       Donate to PLF


What Your Support Means

Donate to PLF

 

A PLF Victory for Freedom

Supreme Court Victories


PLF Donor Highlight

"For PLF, it's not a job - it's a passion. You can feel very good about how well your money is used in support of the programs they have."
Dr. Robert S. Pepper

Our History       Join The Fight

PLF Testimonial

"Individuals for whom a major case is a one shot deal are far more aggrieved. Most individuals cannot afford to do anything with that grievance, and that's where organizations like PLF come in."

Professor Steven Eagle, George Mason School of Law

Our History       Join The Fight