Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 175.0

36  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

III 
The Court concludes that Harvard’s and UNC’s policies
are unconstitutional because they serve objectives that are
insufficiently measurable, employ racial categories that are
imprecise  and  overbroad,  rely  on  racial  stereotypes  and 
disadvantage nonminority groups, and do not have an end 
point.  Ante, at 21–34, 39.  In reaching this conclusion, the 
Court claims those supposed issues with respondents’ pro-
grams  render  the  programs  insufficiently  “narrow”  under
the  strict  scrutiny  framework  that  the  Court’s  precedents 
command.  Ante, at 22.  In reality, however, “the Court to-
day  cuts  through  the  kudzu”  and  overrules  its  “higher-
education  precedents”  following  Bakke.  Ante,  at  22 
(GORSUCH, J., concurring). 

There is no better evidence that the Court is overruling
the  Court’s  precedents  than  those  precedents  themselves.
“Every one of the arguments made by the majority can be
found in the dissenting opinions filed in [the] cases” the ma-
jority now overrules.  Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 846 
(1991)  (Marshall,  J.,  dissenting);  see,  e.g.,  Grutter,  539 
U. S., at 354 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and dissenting 
in part) (“Unlike the majority, I seek to define with preci-
sion  the  interest  being  asserted”);  Fisher  II,  579  U. S.,  at 
389  (THOMAS,  J.,  dissenting)  (race-conscious  admissions 

—————— 
class,” ibid., misunderstands basic principles of statistics.  A number of 
factors (most notably, the demographic composition of the applicant pool)
affect  the  demographic  composition  of  the  entering  class.    Assume,  for 
example, that Harvard admitted students based solely on standardized 
test scores.  If test scores followed a normal distribution (even with dif-
ferent averages by race) and were relatively constant over time, and if 
the  racial  shares  of  total  applicants  were  also  relatively  constant  over 
time, one would expect the same “unyielding demographic composition
of [the] class.”  Ibid.  That would be true even though, under that hypo-
thetical scenario, Harvard does not consider race in admissions at all.  In 
other words, the Court’s inference that precise racial preferences must 
be the cause of relatively constant racial shares of admitted students is 
specious.