Full Answer
What is the significance of Fisher v University of Texas?
Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. ___ (2016) (commonly referred to as Fisher II) is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin 's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny,...
Do university admissions policies violate Fisher’s constitutional rights?
In its opinion, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor, the court held that the university’s admissions policy, as reviewed by the Fifth Circuit, did satisfy strict scrutiny and thus did not violate Fisher’s constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.
What was the Supreme Court decision in Gratz v Bollinger?
The University, which is committed to increasing racial minority enrollment, adopted its current program after this Court decided Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306, upholding the use of race as one of many “plus factors” in an admissions program that considered the overall individual contribution of each candidate, and decided Gratz v.
What happened to Abigail Fisher?
Petitioner Abigail Fisher, who was not in the top 10% of her high school class, was denied admission to the University’s 2008 freshman class. She filed suit, alleging that the University’s consideration of race as part of its holistic-review process disadvantaged her and other Caucasian applicants, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Who won the Fisher v Texas case?
On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court (“Court”), in a 4-3 decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (“Fisher”), held that the race-conscious admissions program used by the University of Texas at Austin (“UT”) was lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
How did the Supreme Court justify its pro affirmative action ruling in Fisher v University of Texas 2016 )?
Martin Luther King Jr. How did the Supreme Court justify its pro-affirmative action ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)? It argued the University of Texas had very narrowly tailored its use of ethnicity and race as admission factors for a compelling interest in diversity.
What did the Supreme Court say that the University of Texas had to do?
The Supreme Court ruled that in states where public graduate and professional schools existed for white students but not for black students, black students must be admitted to the all-white institutions, and that the equal protection clause required Sweatt's admission to the University of Texas School of Law.
Why did Abigail Fisher sue the University of Texas?
Fisher, now in her 30s, sued the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 after it denied her admission. Her 3.59 GPA as a senior put her just below the cut under a state law requiring UT to accept students who graduate in the top 10% of their high school classes.
Did Texas ban affirmative action?
The other six bans were approved at the ballot. The 1996 Hopwood v. Texas decision effectively barred affirmative action in the three states within the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit—Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas—until Grutter v. Bollinger abrogated it in 2003.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the University of Texas's top 10% rule for undergraduate admissions?
Texas appeals court case banning the use of affirmative action. The Supreme Court ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) that affirmative action in college admissions was permissible, effectively overruling Hopwood. UT Austin then reinstated affirmative action for the seats not filled by the Top Ten Percent law.
What was the impact of Fisher v University of Texas?
When the Supreme Court last decided Fisher v. Texas in 2013, sending the case back to the Fifth Circuit, it set high standards for affirmative action programs to meet: Colleges could only consider race in admissions if they can give a "reasoned, principled explanation" for wanting a diverse student body.
What happened to Abigail Fisher?
While Fisher was denied admission at UT's flagship campus, the university did offer her the opportunity to enroll at a satellite campus and later transfer to Austin. But she instead decided to enroll at Louisiana State University, which she graduated from in 2012. Fisher now works as a business analyst in Austin.
What was one case determined by the Supreme Court?
Marbury v. Importance: This decision gave the Court the ability to strike down laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional (a power called judicial review).
Who is Jennifer Gratz?
Jennifer Gratz is a modern-day civil rights leader. In 1997 she challenged race preferences (also known as affirmative action) at the University of Michigan and was victorious at the U.S. Supreme Court. Ms. Gratz was the lead plaintiff in the landmark case Gratz v.
When was Fisher v University of Texas?
2016Fisher v. University of Texas / Date decided
What is affirmative action law?
Affirmative action is defined as a set of procedures designed to; eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future. Applicants may be seeking admission to an educational program or looking for professional employment.
What was the impact of Fisher v University of Texas?
When the Supreme Court last decided Fisher v. Texas in 2013, sending the case back to the Fifth Circuit, it set high standards for affirmative action programs to meet: Colleges could only consider race in admissions if they can give a "reasoned, principled explanation" for wanting a diverse student body.
Has the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action?
The court's January decision to take up the cases presented the most serious threat in decades to the use of affirmative action by the nation's public and private colleges and universities. Get a head start on the morning's top stories. The court has repeatedly upheld affirmative action in the past.
What did affirmative action do?
Affirmative action is defined as a set of procedures designed to; eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future.
Who passed affirmative action?
President Lyndon B. Johnson1965 – President Lyndon B. Johnson issued E.O. 11246, requiring all government contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to expand job opportunities for minorities.
What is the significance of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin?
In a 7-1 decision delivered on June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action admissions policies must be held to a standard of "strict scrutiny" when reviewed in the courts. The court held that strict scrutiny standards place the burden of proof upon the university to demonstrate that its consideration of race is "narrowly tailored" and necessary to obtain campus diversity. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court with instructions to more closely examine the admissions policies of the University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin).
When was Fisher v. University of Texas heard?
The court heard oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin on October 10, 2012.
What court case did Abigail Fisher appeal?
In July 2014, after the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld UT-Austin's admissions plan, Abigail Fisher petitioned the Supreme Court to review her case once again. According to Lisa Soronen of the National Conference of State Legislatures, "Per Texas’s Top Ten Percent Plan, the top 10 percent of Texas high school graduates are automatically admitted to UT Austin, which fills about 80 percent of the class. Unless an applicant has an 'exceptionally high academic Index,' he or she will be evaluated through a holistic review where race is one of a number of factors." Fisher argued that the appeals court did not apply "strict scrutiny" when evaluating UT-Austin's admissions policy.
Why did the University of Texas suspend affirmative action?
Due to a 1996 ruling from a lower court in Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School that the consideration of race in admissions was unconstitutional, the University of Texas system suspended its affirmative action program. In its place, the Texas Legislature passed a law authorizing a "Top 10 Percent" plan for admissions at the University of Texas. This plan automatically admitted all high school students graduating in the top 10 percent of their class to one of the campuses in the system.
What is the University of Texas at Austin case?
In a 4-3 decision delivered on June 23, 2016, the court held that the university’s race-conscious undergraduate admissions program did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Why did Abigail Fisher sue UT Austin?
Fisher sued, claiming that the university's consideration of race violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The university held that its consideration of race was narrowly tailored according to judicial standards and that it was necessary for campus diversity.
Why was Abigail Fisher denied admission to the University of Texas?
In July 2014, after the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld UT-Austin's admissions plan, Abigail Fisher—a white woman who argued that she was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin because of her race, thu s violating her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection—peti tioned the Supreme Court to review her case once again.
What happened to Abigail Fisher?
Petitioner Abigail Fisher, who was not in the top 10% of her high school class, was denied admission to the University’s 2008 freshman class. She filed suit, alleging that the University’s consideration of race as part of its holistic-review process disadvantaged her and other Caucasian applicants, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court entered summary judgment in the University’s favor, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. This Court vacated the judgment, Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, 570 U. S. ___ ( Fisher I ), and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals, so the University’s program could be evaluated under the proper strict scrutiny standard. On remand, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed the entry of summary judgment for the University.
Which court of appeals invalidated the Equal Protection Clause?
In 1996, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidated this admissions system, holding that any consideration of race in college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause. See Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F. 3d 932, 934–935, 948.
What is Justia annotation?
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
How does the University of Texas at Austin admissions process work?
First, as required by the State’s Top Ten Percent Law, it offers admission to any students who graduate from a Texas high school in the top 10% of their class . It then fills the remainder of its incoming freshman class, some 25%, by combining an applicant’s “Academic Index”—the student’s SAT score and high school academic performance—with the applicant’s “Personal Achievement Index,” a holistic review containing numerous factors, including race. The University adopted its current admissions process in 2004, after a year-long-study of its admissions process—undertaken in the wake of Grutter v. Bollinger , 539 U. S. 306 , and Gratz v. Bollinger , 539 U. S. 244 —led it to conclude that its prior race-neutral system did not reach its goal of providing the educational benefits of diversity to its undergraduate students.
What is the admissions system at the University of Texas at Austin?
The University of Texas at Austin’s undergraduate admissions system offers admission to all students who graduate in the top 10% of their Texas high school class, as required by the Texas Top Ten Percent Law. It fills the remainder of its freshman class, about 25%, by combining an applicant’s “Academic Index” (SAT score and high school academic performance) with a “Personal Achievement Index,” a holistic review containing numerous factors, including race. The University adopted the system in 2004, after a year-long-study of its admissions process—undertaken following two Supreme Court decisions—led it to conclude that its prior race-neutral system did not reach its goal of providing the educational benefits of diversity. Fisher was denied admission to the 2008 freshman class. She alleged that the University’s consideration of race disadvantaged her and other Caucasian applicants, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. On remand for application of the strict scrutiny standard, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed summary judgment in the University’s favor. The Supreme Court affirmed. The race-conscious admissions program is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause. The compelling interest that justifies consideration of race in college admissions is not an interest in enrolling a certain number of minority students, but an interest in obtaining “the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity.” The University articulated concrete and precise goals—e.g., ending stereotypes, promoting “cross-racial understanding,” preparing students for “an increasingly diverse workforce and society,” and cultivating leaders with “legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry” and gave a “reasoned, principled explanation” for its decision. The University’s conclusion that race-neutral programs had not achieved its diversity goals was supported by significant statistical and anecdotal evidence, while consideration of race has had a meaningful, but limited, effect on freshman class diversity. That race consciousness played a role in a small portion of admissions decisions is a hallmark of narrow tailoring, not evidence of unconstitutionality. The Top Ten Percent Plan had more of an impact on Fisher’s chances of admission. The Court noted the University’s continuing obligation to satisfy the strict scrutiny burden by periodically reassessing the program and by tailoring it to ensure that race plays no greater role than necessary to meet its compelling interests.
Is deference owed when determining whether the use of race is narrowly tailored to achieve the university’s?
Third, Fisher I clarified that no deference is owed when determining whether the use of race is narrowly tailored to achieve the university’s permissible goals. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 10). A university, Fisher I explained, bears the burden of proving a “nonracial approach” would not promote its interest in the educational benefits of diversity “about as well and at tolerable administrative expense.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 11) (internal quotation marks omitted). Though “ [n]arrow tailoring does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative” or “require a university to choose between maintaining a reputation for excellence [and] fulfilling a commitment to provide educational opportunities to members of all racial groups,” Grutter, 539 U. S., at 339, it does impose “on the university the ultimate burden of demonstrating” that “race-neutral alternatives” that are both “available” and “workable” “do not suffice.” Fisher I, 570 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11).
Is the Supreme Court opinion subject to revision?
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports . Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
What was the purpose of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin?
Supreme Courtaffirmed (4–3) a ruling of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that had upheld the undergraduate admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin, which incorporated a limited program of affirmative actionwith the aim of increasing racial and ethnic diversityamong its students. In an earlier version of the same case, subsequently known as “Fisher I,” the Supreme Court had vacated and remanded (7–1) the Fifth Circuit’s endorsement of the admissions policy on the ground that the appeals court had failed to apply the standard of strict scrutiny (the most-demanding form of judicial review) in its determination that the policy was “narrowly tailored” to serve the state’s compelling interest in “the educational benefits that flow from a diversestudent body.” Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled, the Fifth Circuit had misinterpreted Grutterv. Bollinger(2003; seeBollinger decisions) in giving deference to the university’s judgment that each applicant was evaluated as an individual and that its consideration of race was “necessary” to achieve the educational benefits of diversity. After the Fifth Circuit reexamined the policy in keeping with the Supreme Court’s ruling and again found it to be constitutional, the plaintiff, Abigail Fisher, a white student who had been denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008, again appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed in June 2015 to rehear the case, thereafter known as “Fisher II.” Oral arguments were heard on December 9, 2015.
When was Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin affirmed?
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, also called Fisher II, legal case, decided on June 23, 2016, in which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed (4–3) a ruling of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that had upheld the undergraduate admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin, which incorporated a limited program ...
Who wrote the opinion on Fisher v. Fisher?
Oral arguments were heard on December 9, 2015. In its opinion, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor, the court held that the university’s admissions policy, as reviewed by the Fifth Circuit, did satisfy strict scrutiny and thus did not violate Fisher’s constitutional ...
Who wrote the Fisher v. Fisher case?
In its opinion, written by JusticeAnthony M. Kennedyand joined by JusticesStephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor, the court held that the university’s admissions policy, as reviewed by the Fifth Circuit, did satisfy strict scrutiny and thus did not violate Fisher’s constitutional right to equal protectionof the laws. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas also wrote a separate dissenting opinion. Justice Elena Kaganwas recused.
Why did Abigail Fisher sue?
She filed suit, alleging that the University’s consideration of race as part of its holistic-review process discriminated against Caucasian applicants, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Who authored the majority opinion in the University of Texas case?
The Court upheld the University of Texas’s admissions program, confirming that educational institutions may consider race as one of several factors when seeking to create a diverse student body. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had previously voted against affirmative action, authored the majority opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the matter.
What is the admission process for University of Texas at Austin?
As mandated by the State’s Top Ten Percent Law, it offers admission to any students who graduate from a Texas high school in the top 10 percent of their class. It then fills the remainder of its incoming freshman class by combining an applicant’s “Academic Index,” which includes the student’s SAT score and high school academic performance, with the applicant’s “Personal Achievement Index,” a holistic review containing numerous factors, including race. The University adopted its current admissions process in 2004, after overhauling its procedures in the wake of prior Supreme Court decisions regarding affirmative action.
What is the Constitution in Grutter v. Bollinger?
Bollinger: “The Constitution proscribes government discrimination on the basis of race, and state-provided education is no exception.” 539 U. S. 306, 349 (2003) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). The petitioner in this case did not ask us to overrule Grutter ’s holding that a “compelling interest” in the educational benefits of diversity can justify racial preferences in university admissions. Tr. of Oral Arg. 8–9. I therefore join the Court’s opinion in full.
What is the significance of Grutter v. Michigan?
The reason it advanced did not concern protecting national security or remedying its own past discrimination. Instead, the Law School argued that it needed to discriminate in admissions decisions in order to obtain the “educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” 539 U. S., at 317. Contrary to the very meaning of strict scrutiny, the Court deferred to the Law School’s determination that this interest was sufficiently compelling to justify racial discrimination. Id., at 325.
What are the three cases that address the issue of racial minority status?
Among the Court’s cases involving racial classifications in education, there are three decisions that directly address the question of considering racial minority status as a positive or favorable factor in a university’s admissions process, with the goal of achieving the educational benefits of a more diverse student body: Bakke, 438 U. S. 265; Gratz, supra; and Grutter, 539 U. S. 306. We take those cases as given for purposes of deciding this case.
What did the Wygant case say about racial discrimination?
Two years later, in Wygant, supra, the Court held that even asserted interests in remedying societal discrimination and in providing role models for minority students could not justify governmentally imposed racial discrimination. In that case, a collective-bargaining agreement between a school board and a teacher’s union favored teachers who were “ ‘Black, American Indian, Oriental, or of Spanish descendancy.’ ” Id., at 270–271, and n. 2 (plurality opinion). We rejected the interest in remedying societal discrimination because it had no logical stopping point. Id., at 276. We similarly rebuffed as inadequate the interest in providing role models to minority students and added that the notion that “black students are better off with black teachers could lead to the very system the Court rejected in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954) .” Ibid.
Which amendment guarantees that every person has the right to be treated equally by the State?
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.” The Equal Protection Clause guarantees every person the right to be treated equally by the State, without regard to race. “At the heart of this [guarantee] lies the principle that the government must treat citizens as individuals, and not as members of racial, ethnic, or religious groups.” Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U. S. 70, 120–121 (1995) ( Thomas, J., concurring). “It is for this reason that we must subject all racial classifications to the strictest of scrutiny.” Id., at 121.
Is diversity a racial balancing factor?
S., at 328, provided that diversity is not defined as mere racial balancing and there is a reasoned, principled explanation for the academic decision.
Does the University of Texas at Austin consider race a factor in admissions?
The University of Texas at Austin considers race as one of various factors in its undergraduate admissions process. Race is not itself assigned a numerical value for each ap-plicant, but the University has committed itself to increasing racial minority enrollment on campus. It refers to this goal as a “critical mass.” Petitioner, who is Caucasian, sued the University after her application was re-jected. She contends that the University’s use of race in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.