Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 116.0

10  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
GORSUCH, J., concurring 

may decide to give additional attention to applications from 
students within that group.”  397 F. Supp. 3d, at 146. 

The last step is “lopping,” where the admissions commit-
tee trims the list of “prospective admits” before settling on 
a final class.  Id., at 144 (internal quotation marks omitted).
At this stage, again, the committee considers the “charac-
teristics of the admitted class,” including its “racial compo-
sition.”  Ibid.  Once more, too, the committee may consider
each applicant’s race in deciding whom to “lop off.”  Ibid. 

All  told,  the  district  court  made  a  number  of  findings
about  Harvard’s  use  of  race-based  tips.  For  example:
“[T]he tip[s] given for race impac[t] who among the highly-
qualified students in the applicant pool will be selected for
admission.”  Id., at 178.  “At least 10% of Harvard’s admit-
ted class . . . would most likely not be admitted in the ab-
sence  of  Harvard’s  race-conscious  admissions  process.” 
Ibid.  Race-based tips are “determinative” in securing favor-
able decisions for a significant percentage of “African Amer-
ican and Hispanic applicants,” the “primary beneficiaries”
of this system.  Ibid.  There are clear losers too.  “[W]hite 
and  Asian  American  applicants  are  unlikely  to  receive  a 
meaningful race-based tip,” id., at 190, n. 56, and “overall” 
the  school’s  race-based  practices  “resul[t]  in  fewer  Asian
American and white students being admitted,” id., at 178. 
For  these  reasons  and  others  still,  the  district  court  con-
cluded  that  “Harvard’s  admissions  process  is  not  facially 
neutral” with respect to race.  Id., at 189–190; see also id., 
at 190, n. 56 (“The policy cannot . . . be considered facially 
neutral from a Title VI perspective.”). 

Things work similarly at UNC.  In a typical year, about 
44,000 applicants vie for 4,200 spots.  567 F. Supp. 3d, at 
595.  Admissions  officers  read  each  application  and  rate 
prospective students along eight dimensions:  academic pro-
gramming,  academic  performance,  standardized  tests,  ex-
tracurriculars,  special  talents,  essays,  background,  and 
personal.  Id., at 600.  The district court found that “UNC’s