Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 42

34  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
Opinion of the Court 

them  to  determine  whether  they  remain  necessary.  See 
Brief for Respondent in No. 20–1199, at 52; Brief for Uni-
versity Respondents in No. 21–707, at 58–59.  Respondents
point  to  language  in  Grutter  that,  they  contend,  permits 
“the durational requirement [to] be met” with “periodic re-
views to determine whether racial preferences are still nec-
essary to achieve student body diversity.”  539 U. S., at 342. 
But  Grutter  never  suggested  that  periodic  review  could 
make unconstitutional conduct constitutional.  To the con-
trary, the Court made clear that race-based admissions pro-
grams eventually had to end—despite whatever periodic re-
view universities conducted.  Ibid.; see also supra, at 18. 

Here, however, Harvard concedes that its race-based ad-
missions program has no end point.  Brief for Respondent
in No. 20–1199, at 52 (Harvard “has not set a sunset date” 
for its program (internal quotation marks omitted)).  And it 
acknowledges that the way it thinks about the use of race 
in its admissions process “is the same now as it was” nearly
50 years ago.  Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 20–1199, at 91.  UNC’s 
race-based admissions program is likewise not set to expire 
any time soon—nor, indeed, any time at all.  The University 
admits that it “has not set forth a proposed time period in
which  it  believes  it  can  end  all  race-conscious  admissions 
practices.”  567 F. Supp. 3d, at 612.  And UNC suggests that 
it might soon use race to a greater extent than it currently 
does.  See Brief for University Respondents in No. 21–707, 
at 57.  In short, there is no reason to believe that respond-
ents will—even acting in good faith—comply with the Equal
Protection Clause any time soon. 

V 
The  dissenting  opinions  resist  these  conclusions.  They
would  instead  uphold  respondents’  admissions  programs
based on their view that the Fourteenth Amendment per-
mits state actors to remedy the effects of societal discrimi-
nation  through  explicitly  race-based  measures.  Although