Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Syllabus 

to use race as an admissions factor “was made in good faith.”  It pre-
sumed that the school had acted in good faith and gave petitioner the
burden of rebutting that presumption.  It thus undertook the narrow-
tailoring  requirement  with  a  “degree  of  deference”  to  the  school. 
These expressions of the controlling standard are at odds with Grut-
ter’s command that “all racial classifications imposed by government 
‘must  be  analyzed  by  a reviewing  court  under  strict  scrutiny.’ ”    539 
U. S.,  at  326.  Strict  scrutiny  does  not  permit  a  court  to  accept  a
school’s assertion that its admissions process uses race in a permissi-
ble way without closely examining how the process works in practice,
yet  that  is  what  the  District  Court  and  Fifth  Circuit  did  here.    The 
Court  vacates  the  Fifth  Circuit’s  judgment.    But  fairness  to  the  liti-
gants and the courts that heard the case requires that it be remanded
so that the admissions process can be considered and judged under a 
correct analysis.  In determining whether summary judgment in the 
University’s  favor  was  appropriate,  the  Fifth  Circuit  must  assess
whether  the  University  has  offered  sufficient  evidence  to  prove  that
its admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educational
benefits of diversity.  Pp. 8–13. 

631 F. 3d 213, vacated and remanded. 

KENNEDY, J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  ROBERTS, 
C. J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, BREYER, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. 
SCALIA,  J.,  and  THOMAS,  J.,  filed  concurring  opinions.    GINSBURG,  J., 
filed a dissenting opinion.  KAGAN, J., took no part in the consideration 
or decision of the case.