Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 
AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
Syllabus 

the full committee’s votes is tentatively accepted for admission.  At the 
end  of  this  process,  the  racial  composition  of  the  tentative  applicant 
pool is disclosed to the committee.  The last stage of Harvard’s admis-
sions process, called the “lop,” winnows the list of tentatively admitted 
students to arrive at the final class.  Applicants that Harvard consid-
ers  cutting  at  this  stage  are  placed  on  the  “lop  list,”  which  contains 
only four pieces of information: legacy status, recruited athlete status,
financial aid eligibility, and race.  In the Harvard admissions process, 
“race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admit-
ted African American and Hispanic applicants.”   

UNC  has  a  similar  admissions  process.    Every  application  is  re-
viewed first by an admissions office reader, who assigns a numerical 
rating to each of several categories.  Readers are required to consider 
the applicant’s race as a factor in their review.  Readers then make a 
written recommendation on each assigned application, and they may
provide an applicant a substantial “plus” depending on the applicant’s 
race.  At this stage, most recommendations are provisionally final.  A 
committee of experienced staff members then conducts a “school group 
review” of every initial decision made by a reader and either approves
or rejects the recommendation.  In making those decisions, the com-
mittee may consider the applicant’s race. 

Petitioner, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), is a nonprofit or-
ganization whose stated purpose is “to defend human and civil rights
secured by law, including the right of individuals to equal protection 
under  the  law.”    SFFA  filed  separate  lawsuits  against  Harvard  and 
UNC, arguing that their race-based admissions programs violate, re-
spectively, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pro-
tection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  After separate bench 
trials,  both  admissions  programs  were  found  permissible  under  the 
Equal Protection Clause and this Court’s precedents.  In the Harvard 
case, the First Circuit affirmed, and this Court granted certiorari.  In 
the UNC case, this Court granted certiorari before judgment. 

Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Pro-

tection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Pp. 6–40.

(a) Because SFFA complies with the standing requirements for or-
ganizational plaintiffs articulated by this Court in Hunt v. Washington 
State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U. S. 333, SFFA’s obligations un-
der Article III are satisfied, and this Court has jurisdiction to consider 
the merits of SFFA’s claims.   

The  Court  rejects  UNC’s  argument  that  SFFA  lacks  standing  be-
cause  it  is  not  a  “genuine”  membership  organization.    An  organiza-
tional plaintiff can satisfy Article III jurisdiction in two ways, one of
which is to assert “standing solely as the representative of its mem-