Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 75.0

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

27 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

B 
The Court also correctly refuses to defer to the universi-
ties’  own  assessments  that  the  alleged  benefits  of  race- 
conscious admissions programs are compelling.  It instead 
demands that the “interests [universities] view as compel-
ling” must be capable of being “subjected to meaningful ju-
dicial review.”  Ante, at 22.  In other words, a court must be 
able  to  measure  the  goals  asserted  and  determine  when
they have been reached.  Ante, at 22–24.  The Court’s opin-
ion today further insists that universities must be able to
“articulate  a  meaningful  connection  between  the  means
they employ and the goals they pursue.”  Ante, at 24.  Again,
I  agree.    Universities’  self-proclaimed  righteousness  does 
not afford them license to discriminate on the basis of race. 
In fact, it is error for a court to defer to the views of an 
alleged  discriminator  while  assessing  claims  of  racial  dis-
crimination.  See Grutter, 539 U. S., at 362–364 (opinion of 
THOMAS,  J.);  see  also  Fisher  I,  570  U. S.,  at  318–319 
(THOMAS,  J.,  concurring);  United  States  v.  Virginia,  518 
U. S. 515, 551, n. 19 (1996) (refusing to defer to the Virginia
Military Institute’s judgment that the changes necessary to
accommodate  the  admission of  women  would be  too  great 
and  characterizing  the  necessary  changes  as  “managea-
ble”).  We would not offer such deference in any other con-
text.  In  employment  discrimination  lawsuits  under  Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act, for example, courts require only 
a  minimal prima  facie  showing  by  a  complainant  before 
shifting  the  burden  onto  the  shoulders  of  the  alleged-
discriminator  employer.    See  McDonnell  Douglas  Corp.  v. 
Green, 411 U. S. 792, 803–805 (1973).  And, Congress has 
passed  numerous  laws—such  as  the  Civil  Rights  Act  of
1875—under  its  authority  to  enforce  the  Fourteenth
Amendment, each designed to counter discrimination and
each  relying  on  courts  to  bring  a  skeptical  eye  to  alleged 
discriminators. 

This judicial skepticism is vital.  History has repeatedly