fisher v university of texas pdf

Brief for Petitioner 46. [7] A recent survey reported that 26% of Hispanics and 28% of Asian-Americans marry a spouse of a different race or ethnicity. (June 12, 2015), online at http://www.pewresearch.org/ fact-tank/2015/06/12/interracial-marriage-who-is-marrying-out/; W. Wang, Pew Research Center, The Rise of Intermarriage (Feb. 16, 2012), online at http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/02/16/the-rise-of-intermarriage/. The record here demonstrates the pitfalls inherent in racial balancing. The Court remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to assess the parties’ claims under the correct legal standard. 24a–25a. . UT therefore cannot satisfy strict scrutiny. H����n� F���S�8K��QTK���;�k�t��}�I=d� ��q��ǫ�X;����#t���ϤZ�c����z[w=��x��e�8֮� %��)�"-�;����BgZ����z��PG5X��`�c���u=�>�ϯ밙CpL,�uR���zQ�U����W ��hkop 517 (2000) ~B�>B��X.���N��A�Y�0����P�q�Vr�]i��?�+�"���TU 'p�.1����Ɩ9��Z�3J�(&8��z=e_���"drZ3�3 8:*�D�GxLp�Y���rY�X\��\� Accordingly, all students must submit a full application containing essays, letters of recommendation, a resume, a list of courses taken in high school, and a description of any extracurricular activities, leadership experience, or special circumstances. In any event, it is not a failure of narrow tailoring for the impact of racial consideration to be minor. The University of Texas at Austin (University) uses an undergraduate admissions system containing two components. “Racial discrimination [is] invidious in all contexts,” Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., . Consistent with Hopwood, race was not a consideration in calculating an applicant’s AI or PAI. $4�%�&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz�������������������������������������������������������������������������� ? Rather, the Proposal “examined two metrics—classroom diversity and demographic disparities—that it concluded were relevant to its ability to provide [the] benefits of diversity.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 27–28. of Oral Arg. FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN et al. . The District Court entered summary judgment in the University’s favor, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. As long as there are a sufficient number of “Asian Americans,” UT is apparently satisfied. Petitioner’s application was rejected. ET AL. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. �Ѹ�~�-Z7�j�!�*���y�!k���9�xU��5��_Yw%�������:�Zt eoT���"��@ J�t��3�������9�|�p�jК���`K���f�-��� �s�c���}A(�4����ڣ��C�~q+��y!�d����MWmj��'ښԯ�>��'�X}�m�9�^7�x�[��>#�.�����eK��F���'h?3������<1K��~{6�p(�Jŝ���0� z��� Now we are told that a program that tends to admit poor and disadvantaged minority students is inadequate because it does not work to the advantage of those who are more fortunate. 24a (emphasis added); see also id., at 1a, 25a, 39a; App. 25a; see Fisher v. University of Tex. The University of Texas at Austin (or University) relies upon a complex system of admissions that has undergone significant evolution over the past two decades. UT “has not provided any concrete targets for admitting more minority students possessing [the] unique qualitative-diversity characteristics” it desires. These are but examples of the general problem. Supp. ¶4) (setting forth the same goals). As noted above, the study indicated that 52% of these classes had no African-Americans, 16% had no Asian-Americans, and 12% had no Hispanics. 515 U. S. 200, But is this necessarily so? 8–11. 320 U. S. 81, This is nothing less than theplea for deference that we emphatically rejected in our prior decision. ), Doc. hޤTmO�0�+�84�o��H�-&A�h�B1m�4�W��;;�)o�L��;ߋ����F�� 1 . Given that the University bears the burden of proof, it is not surprising that UT never made the argument that it should win based on the lack of evidence. Does a public university violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it considers race in admissions decisions?top And the Court’s willingness to allow this “discrimination against individuals of Asian descent in UT admissions is particularly troubling, in light of the long history of discrimination against Asian Americans, especially in education.” Brief for Asian American Legal Foundation et al. ET AL. In 2003, 11 percent of the Texas residents enrolled through holistic review were Hispanic and 3.5 percent were African-American. Despite the Top Ten Percent Plan’s outsized effect on petitioner’s chances of admission, she has not challenged it. But UT has failed to identify the level of classroom diversity it deems sufficient, again making it im-possible to apply strict scrutiny. 14–981. (quoting Hirabayashi v. United States, Argued October 10, 2012—Decided June 24, 2013 . 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. App. 28. In assessing applicants, preference was given to racialminorities. UT could not possibly make such determinations without studying the students admitted under the Top Ten Percent Plan. See, e.g., Supp. Const., Amdt. App. App. (internal quotation marks omitted). 539 U. S. 306 (2003) Justice Alito, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, dissenting. of Oral Arg. 11–13. (claiming that privileged minorities “have great potential for serving as a ‘bridge’ in promoting cross-racial understanding, as well as in breaking down racial stereotypes”); ibid. of Cal. . Pp. Specifically, 25% of African-Americans and 27% of Hispanics admitted through the Top Ten Percent Plan in 2008 were raised in households with incomes exceeding $80,000. This argument directly contradicts this Court’s precedent. (�� Pp. Notwithstanding the majority’s claims to the contrary, UT should have access to plenty of information about “how students admitted solely based on their class rank differ in their contribution to diversity from students admitted through holistic review.” Ante, at 9. 438 U. S. 265, . First, a university may not consider race “unless the admissions process can withstand strict scrutiny,” i.e., it must show that its “purpose or interest is both constitutionally permissible and substantial, and that its use of the classification is necessary” to accomplish that purpose. It’s on the front page of the application that’s being read [and] is used in context with everything else that’s part of the applicant’s file”). ABIGAIL NOEL FISHER, PETITIONER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, et al. UT instead asserts that “if the Court believes there are any deficiencies in [the] record that cast doubt on the constitutionality of UT’s policy, the answer is to order a trial, not to grant summary judgment.” Brief for Respondents 51; see also id., at 52–53 (“[I]f this Court has any doubts about how the Top 10% Law works, or how UT’s holistic plan offsets the tradeoffs of the Top 10% Law, the answer is to remand for a trial”). Based on this study, the Proposal concluded that UT “has not reached a critical mass at the classroom level.” Id., at 24a. United States Census Bureau, 2010 Census Shows Multiple-Race Population Grew Faster Than Single-Race Population (Sept. 27, 2012), online at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/race/cb12-182.html. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT . App. 25a; see also App. Therefore, although admissions officers can consider race as a positive feature of a minority student’s application, there is no dispute that race is but a “factor of a factor of a factor” in the holistic-review calculus. Those students may choose to attend any of the public universities in the State. The other major explanation UT offered in the Proposal was its desire to promote classroom diversity. ; see also Grutter, 539 U. S., at 388 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (“ ‘Racial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect and thus call for the most exacting judicial examination’ ”). (faulting government for relying on “crude racial cat-egories”); Metro Broadcasting, supra, at 633, n. 1 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (concluding that “ ‘the very attempt to define with precision a beneficiary’s qualifying racial characteristics is repugnant to our constitutional ideals,’ ” and noting that if the government “ ‘is to make a serious effort to define racial classes by criteria that can be administered objectively, it must study precedents such as the First Regulation to the Reichs Citizenship Law of November 14, 1935’ ”).