Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 137.0

6 

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 
AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

The  Grutter  Court  rejected  those  arguments  for  ending
race-based affirmative action in higher education in 2003.
But  in  doing  so,  the  Court  struck  a  careful  balance.    The 
Court  ruled  that  narrowly  tailored  race-based  affirmative 
action  in  higher  education  could  continue  for  another
generation.  But  the  Court  also  explicitly  rejected  any 
“permanent 
justification  for  racial  preferences,”  and 
therefore ruled that race-based affirmative action in higher 
education could continue only for another generation.  539 
U. S., at 342–343.   

Harvard and North Carolina would prefer that the Court 
now ignore or discard Grutter’s 25-year limit on race-based 
affirmative action in higher education, or treat it as a mere 
aspiration.  But the 25-year limit constituted an important
part of Justice O’Connor’s nuanced opinion for the Court in 
Grutter.  Indeed,  four  of  the  separate  opinions  in  Grutter 
discussed the majority opinion’s 25-year limit, which belies
any  suggestion  that  the  Court’s  reference  to  it  was
insignificant or not carefully considered. 

In  short,  the  Court  in  Grutter  expressly  recognized  the
serious issues raised by racial classifications—particularly
permanent  or  long-term  racial  classifications.    And  the 
Court “assure[d] all citizens” throughout America that “the 
deviation  from  the  norm  of  equal  treatment”  in  higher
education could continue for another generation, and only 
for  another  generation.  Ibid.  (internal  quotation  marks 
omitted).

A generation has now passed since Grutter, and about 50 
years have gone by since the era of Bakke and DeFunis v. 
Odegaard,  416  U. S.  312 
(1974),  when  race-based 
affirmative  action  programs  in  higher  education  largely 
began.  In  light  of  the  Constitution’s  text,  history,  and 
precedent,  the  Court’s  decision  today  appropriately
respects and abides by Grutter’s explicit temporal limit on 
in  higher 
the  use  of  race-based  affirmative  action