Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 6

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

ground.  These  included  growing  up  in  a  single-parent 
home,  speaking  a  language  other  than  English  at  home,
significant  family  responsibilities  assumed  by  the  appli-
cant,  and  the  general  socioeconomic  condition  of  the  stu-
dent’s  family.  Seeking  to  address  the  decline  in  minority
enrollment  after  Hopwood,  the  University  also  expanded
its outreach programs. 

The Texas State Legislature also responded to the Hop­
wood  decision.  It  enacted  a  measure  known  as  the  Top 
Ten Percent Law, codified at Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §51.803
(West  2009).  Also  referred  to  as  H. B.  588,  the  Top 
Ten Percent Law grants automatic admission to any pub-
lic  state  college,  including  the  University,  to  all  students 
in  the  top  10%  of  their  class  at  high  schools  in  Texas 
that comply with certain standards. 

The  University’s  revised  admissions  process,  coupled 
with the operation of the Top Ten Percent Law, resulted in
a  more  racially  diverse  environment  at  the  University.
Before the admissions program at issue in this case, in the 
last year under the post-Hopwood AI/PAI system that did
not  consider  race,  the  entering  class  was  4.5%  African-
American  and  16.9%  Hispanic.    This  is  in  contrast  with 
the 1996 pre-Hopwood and Top Ten Percent regime, when 
race was explicitly considered, and the University’s enter-
ing freshman class was 4.1% African-American and 14.5%
Hispanic.

Following  this  Court’s  decisions  in  Grutter  v.  Bollinger, 
supra,  and  Gratz  v.  Bollinger,  539  U. S.  244  (2003),  the
University  adopted a third admissions program, the 2004 
program  in  which  the  University  reverted  to  explicit  con-
sideration  of  race.  This  is  the  program  here  at  issue.  In 
Grutter,  the  Court  upheld  the  use  of  race  as  one  of  many 
“plus  factors”  in  an  admissions  program  that  considered
the  overall  individual  contribution  of  each  candidate.    In 
Gratz, by contrast, the Court held unconstitutional Michi-
gan’s undergraduate admissions program, which automat-