Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

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 THOMAS, concurring. 
I join the Court’s opinion because I agree that the Court 
of  Appeals  did  not  apply  strict  scrutiny  to  the  University
of  Texas  at  Austin’s  (University)  use  of  racial  discrimi-
nation  in  admissions  decisions.  Ante,  at  1.  I  write  sepa-
rately to explain that I would overrule Grutter v.  Bollinger, 
539 U. S. 306 (2003), and hold that a State’s use of race in
higher  education  admissions  decisions  is  categorically 
prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause. 

I 

A 

The  Fourteenth  Amendment  provides  that  no  State
shall  “deny  to  any  person  . . .  the  equal  protection  of    the 
laws.”  The  Equal  Protection  Clause  guarantees  every 
person  the  right  to  be  treated  equally  by  the  State,  with-
out  regard  to  race.    “At  the  heart  of  this  [guarantee]  lies
the  principle  that  the  government  must  treat  citizens  as 
individuals,  and  not  as  members  of  racial,  ethnic,  or  reli-
gious groups.”  Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U. S. 70, 120–121 
(1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring).  “It is for this reason that 
we must subject all racial classifications to the strictest of
scrutiny.”  Id., at 121. 

Under  strict  scrutiny,  all  racial  classifications  are  cate-
gorically prohibited unless they are “ ‘necessary to further