Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2012 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 11–345.  Argued October 10, 2012—Decided June 24, 2013 

The University of Texas at Austin considers race as one of various fac-
tors in its undergraduate admissions process.  The University, which 
is  committed  to  increasing  racial  minority  enrollment,  adopted  its 
current  program  after  this  Court  decided  Grutter  v.  Bollinger,  539 
U. S. 306, upholding the use of race as one of many “plus factors” in
an admissions program that considered the overall individual contri-
bution  of  each  candidate,  and  decided  Gratz  v.  Bollinger,  539  U. S. 
244, holding unconstitutional an admissions program that automati-
cally awarded points to applicants from certain racial minorities. 

Petitioner,  who  is  Caucasian,  was  rejected  for  admission  to  the
University’s 2008 entering class.  She sued the University and school
officials, alleging that the University’s consideration of race in admis-
sions  violated  the  Equal  Protection  Clause.    The  District  Court 
granted  summary  judgment  to  the  University.    Affirming,  the  Fifth
Circuit  held  that  Grutter  required  courts  to  give  substantial  defer-
ence to the University, both in the definition of the compelling inter-
est  in  diversity’s  benefits  and  in  deciding  whether  its  specific  plan
was  narrowly  tailored  to  achieve  its  stated  goal.    Applying  that
standard, the court upheld the University’s admissions plan. 

Held: Because  the  Fifth  Circuit  did  not  hold  the  University  to  the  de-
manding burden of strict scrutiny articulated in Grutter and Regents 
of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, its decision affirming the Dis-
trict Court’s grant of summary judgment to the University was incor-
rect.  Pp. 5–13. 

(a) Bakke,  Gratz,  and  Grutter,  which directly  address  the  question 
considered here, are taken as given for purposes of deciding this case.
In  Bakke’s  principal  opinion,  Justice  Powell  recognized  that  state
university “decisions based on race or ethnic origin . . . are reviewable