Fisher v.
University of Texas at Austin
Lorraine Jones
Yu Sun
Facts
Abigail Noel FISHER, Petitioner
Caucasian applicant, Abigail Noel FISHER, who was denied admission to state university brought suit alleging
that university's consideration of race in its admissions process violated her right to equal protection.
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN et al., respondent
In response to the OCR violoation and a long history of pervasive discrimation the University Of Texas adpoted
three programs to help them achieve their goals.
(1) The Top Ten Percent Law grants automatic admission to any public state college, including the University,
to all students in the top 10% of their class at high schools in Texas that comply with certain standards.
Facts (Cont.)
(2) In addition to the Top Ten percent policy, University of Texas also adopted two other program to address the
Universty goals.This included evaluating student on a Personal Achievement Index. “Personal Achievement
Index” (PAI) measures a student's leadership and work experience, awards, extracurricular activities, community
service, and other special circumstances that give insight into a student's background. In addition, growing up in
a single-parent home, speaking a language other than English at home, significant family responsibilities
assumed by the applicant, and the general socioeconomic condition of the student's family and (3) race.
However, race is not given an assigned explicit numerical value. In response to the Court's decisions in Grutter,
the University adopted this admission program the 2004 program in which the University reverted to explicit
consideration of race. This is the program here at issue.
Once applications have been scored, they are plotted on a grid with the Academic Index (AI) on the x-axis and
the Personal Achievement Index (PAI) on the y-axis.
Procedural History
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
granted university summary judgment.
Applicant appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, affirmed.
Certiorari was granted.
Legal Issue
Did the lower courts apply strict scrutiny rightly?
(Do the race conscious admission policies to achieve
“critical mass” violate Title VI and the Equal Protection
Clause?
-compelling interest?
-narrowly tailored? )
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2012/11-345
Arguments
No:
“It (the lower court) presumed that the school had acted in good faith and gave
petitioner the burden of rebutting that presumption.
University receives no judicial deference in its choice of means to attain its goal of
racial diversity in admissions, rather, it is for courts to ensure that means chosen are
specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish university's asserted purpose, as required by Equal Protection Clause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.” -- Justice Kennedy
Yes:
“Accordingly, I would not return this case for a second look. As the thorough opinions
below show, 631 F.3d 213 (C.A.5 2011); 645 F.Supp.2d 587, the University's
admissions policy flexibly considers race only as a “factor of a factor of a factor of a
factor” in the calculus.” -- Justice Ginsburg
Holding
The Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy, held that Court of Appeals
did not apply correct standard of strict scrutiny.
Because the Fifth Circuit did not hold the University to the
demanding burden of strict scrutiny.
Vacated and remanded.
Justices Scalia and Thomas filed concurring opinions.
Justice Ginsburg filed dissenting opinion.
Justice Kagan took no part in consideration or decision of the case.
Is there any discrepancy in the legal
issue and the holding? Did the
holding address all the legal issue in
this case?
Activity: Mock Trial
What is the legal issues in this case?
As Supreme Court Justices, what will be you
final holdings?
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Majority opinion: O’Connor, Joined by : Stevens, Ginsbrug, Breyer, Souter
Disagreed: Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
5-4
Parents Involved v. Meredith (2006)
--4 Justices saying no compelling interest and not narrowly tailored (Roberts, Scalia,
Thomas, Alito)
--4 Justices saying compelling interest and narrowly tailored (Stevens, Souter, Breyer,
Ginsburg)
--1 Justice, justice Kennedy: there is a compelling interest, but not narrowly tailored
4-1-4
Antonin Scalia,
1986
Anthony Kennedy,
1988
Clarence Thomas,
1991
Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, 1993
Chief Justice John
Roberts, 2005
Sonia Sotomayor,
2009
Stephen Breyer,
1994
Samuel Alito, 2006
Elena Kagan, 2010
Thank you!