Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

Syllabus 

under  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,”  438  U. S.,  at  287,  using  a  strict
scrutiny standard, id., at 299.  He identified as a compelling interest
that could justify the consideration of race the interest in the educa-
tional benefits that flow from a diverse student body, but noted that
this  interest  is  complex,  encompassing  a  broad  array  “of  qualifica-
tions and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a sin-
gle though important element.”  Id., at 315
  In Gratz and Grutter, the Court endorsed these precepts, observing 
that an admissions process with such an interest is subject to judicial
review and must withstand strict scrutiny, Gratz, supra, at 275, i.e., 
a university must clearly demonstrate that its “ ‘purpose or interest is
both constitutionally permissible and substantial, and that its use of
the classification is “necessary . . . to the accomplishment” of its pur-
pose,’ ”  Bakke,  supra,  at  305.    Additional  guidance  may  be  found  in
the Court’s broader equal protection jurisprudence.  See, e.g., Rice v. 
Cayetano, 528 U. S. 495, 517; Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 
469,  505.    Strict  scrutiny  is  a  searching  examination,  and  the  gov-
ernment bears the burden to prove “ ‘that the reasons for any [racial] 
classification [are] clearly identified and unquestionably legitimate.’ ” 
Ibid.  Pp. 5–8.

(b) Under  Grutter,  strict  scrutiny  must  be  applied  to  any  admis-
sions program using racial categories or classifications.  A court may 
give some deference to a university’s “judgment that such diversity is 
essential to its educational mission,” 539 U. S., at 328, provided that 
diversity  is  not  defined  as  mere  racial  balancing  and  there  is  a  rea-
soned,  principled  explanation  for  the  academic  decision.    On  this 
point,  the  courts  below  were  correct  in  finding  that Grutter  calls  for 
deference to the University’s experience and expertise about its edu-
cational mission.  However, once the University has established that
its  goal  of  diversity  is  consistent  with  strict  scrutiny,  the  University
must prove that  the means  it chose to attain that diversity are nar-
rowly  tailored  to  its  goal.  On  this  point,  the  University  receives  no 
deference.  Id., at 333.  It is at all times the University’s obligation to
demonstrate, and the Judiciary’s obligation to determine, that admis-
sions  processes  “ensure  that  each  applicant  is  evaluated  as  an  indi-
vidual  and  not  in  a  way  that  makes  an  applicant’s  race  or  ethnicity
the  defining  feature  of  his  or  her  application.”    Id.,  at  337.  Narrow 
tailoring  also  requires  a  reviewing  court  to  verify  that  it  is  “neces-
sary” for the university to use race to achieve the educational benefits 
of  diversity.    Bakke,  supra,  at  305.    The  reviewing  court  must  ulti-
mately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would
produce the educational benefits of diversity. 

Rather than perform this searching examination, the Fifth Circuit
held petitioner could challenge only whether the University’s decision