Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 166.0

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

27 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

A 
Answering  the  question  whether  Harvard’s  and  UNC’s
policies survive strict scrutiny under settled law is straight-
forward,  both  because  of  the  procedural  posture  of  these 
cases  and  because  of  the  narrow  scope  of  the  issues  pre-
sented  by  petitioner  Students  for  Fair  Admissions,  Inc. 
(SFFA).22 

These cases arrived at this Court after two lengthy trials.
Harvard and UNC introduced dozens of fact witnesses, ex-
pert  testimony,  and  documentary  evidence  in  support  of 
their  admissions  programs.  Brief  for  Petitioner  20,  40. 
SFFA, by contrast, did not introduce a single fact witness 
and relied on the testimony of two experts.  Ibid. 

After making detailed findings of fact and conclusions of
law, the District Courts entered judgment in favor of Har-
vard and UNC.  See 397 F. Supp. 3d 126, 133–206 (Mass. 
2019)  (Harvard  I );  567  F. Supp. 3d  580,  588–667  (MDNC 
2021)  (UNC).  The  First  Circuit  affirmed  in  the  Harvard 
case,  finding  “no  error”  in  the  District  Court’s  thorough 
opinion.  980 F. 3d 157, 204 (2020) (Harvard II ).  SFFA then 
filed petitions for a writ of certiorari in both cases, which 
the Court granted.  595 U. S. ___ (2022).23 

The  Court  granted  certiorari  on  three  questions:  (1)
whether  the  Court  should  overrule  Bakke,  Grutter,  and 

—————— 
strategic litigation choice, and in our adversarial system, it is not up to
this Court to come up with “wrongs to right” on behalf of litigants.  Id., at 
244 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

22 SFFA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization founded after this Court’s
decision in Fisher I, 570 U. S. 297 (2013).  App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 
20–1199, p. 10.  Its original board of directors had three self-appointed
members:  Edward  Blum,  Abigail  Fisher  (the  plaintiff  in  Fisher),  and 
Richard Fisher.  See ibid. 

23 Bypassing  the  Fourth  Circuit’s  opportunity  to  review  the  District 
Court’s  opinion  in  the  UNC  case,  SFFA  sought  certiorari  before  judg-
ment, urging that, “[p]aired with Harvard,” the UNC case would “allow 
the Court to resolve the ongoing validity of race-based admissions under
both Title VI and the Constitution.”  Pet. for Cert. in No. 21–707, p. 27.