Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

1 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 11–345 
_________________ 

ABIGAIL NOEL FISHER, PETITIONER v. UNIVERSITY 
OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 24, 2013] 

JUSTICE GINSBURG, dissenting. 
The University of Texas at Austin (University) is candid 
about  what  it  is  endeavoring  to  do:  It  seeks  to  achieve 
student-body  diversity  through  an  admissions  policy  pat-
terned after the Harvard plan referenced as exemplary in
Justice  Powell’s  opinion  in  Regents  of  Univ.  of  Cal.  v. 
Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 316–317 (1978).  The University has 
steered clear of a quota system like the one struck down in 
Bakke,  which  excluded  all  nonminority  candidates  from 
competition  for  a  fixed  number  of  seats.  See  id.,  at  272– 
275, 315, 319–320 (opinion of Powell, J.).  See also Gratz v. 
Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244, 293 (2003) (Souter, J., dissenting) 
(“Justice  Powell’s  opinion  in  [Bakke]  rules  out  a  racial 
quota or set-aside, in which race is the sole fact of eligibil-
ity for certain places in a class.”).  And, like so many edu-
cational  institutions  across  the  Nation,1  the  University
has taken care to follow the model approved by the Court
in  Grutter  v.  Bollinger,  539  U. S.  306  (2003).    See  645 

—————— 

1 See Brief for Amherst College et al. as Amici Curiae 33–35; Brief for 
Association  of  American  Law  Schools  as  Amicus  Curiae  6;  Brief  for 
Association of American Medical Colleges et al. as Amici Curiae 30–32; 
Brief  for  Brown  University  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  2–3,  13;  Brief  for 
Robert Post et al. as Amici Curiae 24–27; Brief for Fordham University 
et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  5–6;  Brief  for  University  of  Delaware  et al.  as 
Amici Curiae 16–21.