On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United State issued an opinion holding that the admissions programs at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (“UNC”) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision highlights the appropriate criteria under the Equal Protection Clause that higher education institutions may evaluate when considering a candidate’s admission.
Harvard College and UNC are two of the oldest and most elite institutions of higher learning in the United States. Every year tens of thousands of students go through the application process with only few being admitted. Both ivies have an extensive and selective application process, where committees meet, and rank applicants based on a number of categories. The Court stated that in the Harvard admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for “a significant percentage” of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” The Court also stated that UNC offers students a “plus” based on their race, which in some cases may have a significant effect on the individual’s admission.
Founded in 2014, Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”) is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is “to defend human and civil rights secured by law, including the right of individuals to equal protection under the law.” In 2014, SFFA filed suits against Harvard College and UNC arguing that their admissions tactics violated both Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause. However, the lower courts concluded that both Harvard’s and UNC’s admission programs comported with precedent and were permissible under the Equal Protection Clause as the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, equality of treatment before the law for all persons without regard to race is required. In the Courts analysis of Harvard and UNCs admission process, strict scrutiny was applied. This means that for the admission tactics to be Constitutional they must serve a compelling interest and the tactics must be necessary and narrowly tailored to those achieving those interests. Prior to this case, courts followed the Grutter v. Bollinger standard when addressing admission criteria, in which the court upheld the University of Michigan law School’s consideration of race “as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race.”
Here, a vote of 6-2 reversed the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina judgments, ruling the use of affirmative action in college admissions violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion for this case clarifying and refining the Court findings in prior decisions. Roberts stated that the Court only allowed universities to use race-based admissions programs “within the confines of narrow restriction.”
Roberts’ dissatisfaction with Harvard’s and UNC’s admission process starts with the vague goals the institutions state will be achieved by it. The Court could not measure whether “training future leaders in the public and private sector” and “promoting the robust exchange of ideas” were compelling interests that would be accurately achieved by an admission process that gives higher acceptance to minority races.
The majority also stated that Harvard and UNC admission programs did not have a “logical end point,” which was the original idea when the Court issued the opinion in Grutter. In fact, UNC suggested that it might soon use race to a greater extent than it currently does in the admission process. Without a logical end point the Court was unable to say that the admission process used by these institutions was necessary and narrowly tailored to the already vague goals.
Although this decision limited the weight higher education institutions can place on race during the admission process, Roberts stated that applicants are still able to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have concrete effect on the university.
Additional insights provided by ES Law clerk, Emily Todd.