Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 181

42  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

has approved” many times in the past.  Fisher II, 579 U. S., 
at 382; see, e.g., UNC, 567 F. Supp. 3d, at 598 (“the [univer-
sity’s  admissions  policy]  repeatedly  cites  Supreme  Court
precedent  as  guideposts”).33    At  bottom,  without  any  new 
factual  or  legal  justification,  the  Court  overrides  its 
longstanding holding that diversity in higher education is
of compelling value. 

To  avoid  public  accountability  for  its  choice,  the  Court
seeks cover behind a unique measurability requirement of 
its own creation.  None of this Court’s precedents, however,
requires  that  a  compelling  interest  meet  some  threshold
level of precision to be deemed sufficiently compelling.  In 
fact, this Court has recognized as compelling plenty of in-
terests that are equally or more amorphous, including the 
“intangible” interest in preserving “public confidence in ju-
dicial integrity,” an interest that “does not easily reduce to
precise  definition.”    Williams-Yulee  v.  Florida  Bar,  575 
U. S. 433, 447, 454 (2015) (ROBERTS, C. J., for the Court); 
see also, e.g.,  Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) 
(ROBERTS, C. J., for the Court) (slip op., at 18) (“[M]aintain-
ing solemnity and decorum in the execution chamber” is a
“compelling”  interest);  United  States  v.  Alvarez,  567  U. S. 
709, 725 (2012) (plurality opinion) (“[P]rotecting the integ-
rity of the Medal of Honor” is a “compelling interes[t]”); Sa-
ble Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115, 126 
(1989)  (“[P]rotecting  the  physical  and  psychological  well-
being of minors” is a “compelling interest”).  Thus, although 
—————— 

33 There is no dispute that respondents’ compelling diversity objectives
are  “substantial,  long-standing,  and  well  documented.”    UNC,  567 
F. Supp.  3d,  at  655;  Harvard  II,  980  F. 3d,  at  186–187.    SFFA  did  not 
dispute below that respondents have a compelling interest in diversity. 
See id., at 185; Harvard I, 397 F. Supp. 3d, at 133; Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 
21–707, p. 121.  And its expert agreed that valuable educational benefits
flow from diversity, including richer and deeper learning, reduced bias,
and more creative problem solving.  2 App. in No. 21–707, p. 546.  SFFA’s 
counsel also emphatically disclaimed the issue at trial.  2 App. in No. 20–
1199, p. 548 (“Diversity and its benefits are not on trial here”).