Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 71

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

23 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

all  racial  classifications  to  the  strictest  of  scrutiny.”  Jen-
kins,  515  U. S.,  at  121  (THOMAS, J.,  concurring);  see  also 
ante, at 15, n. 4 (emphasizing the consequences of an insuf-
ficiently  searching  inquiry).    And,  in  case  after  case,  we 
have  employed  strict  scrutiny  vigorously  to  reject  various
forms  of  racial  discrimination  as  unconstitutional.  See 
Fisher  I,  570  U. S.,  at  317–318  (THOMAS,  J.,  concurring).
The  Court  today  rightly  upholds  that  tradition  and
acknowledges  the  consequences  that  have  flowed  from 
Grutter’s contrary approach. 

Three aspects of today’s decision warrant comment: First, 
to satisfy strict scrutiny, universities must be able to estab-
lish an actual link between racial discrimination and edu-
cational benefits.  Second, those engaged in racial discrimi-
nation  do  not  deserve  deference  with  respect  to  their
reasons for discriminating.  Third, attempts to remedy past
governmental discrimination must be closely tailored to ad-
dress that particular past governmental discrimination. 

A 
To satisfy strict scrutiny, universities must be able to es-
tablish a compelling reason to racially discriminate.  Grut-
ter recognized “only one” interest sufficiently compelling to 
justify  race-conscious  admissions  programs:  the  “educa-
tional benefits of a diverse student body.”  539 U. S., at 328, 

—————— 
(2003) (“We have explained that discrimination that violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment committed by an insti-
tution that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI”); 
Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 287 (1978) (opinion of 
Powell, J.) (“Title VI . . . proscribe[s] only those racial classifications that 
would violate the Equal Protection Clause”).  As JUSTICE GORSUCH points
out, the language of Title VI makes no allowance for racial considerations 
in university admissions.  See post, at 2–3 (concurring opinion).  Though
I continue to adhere to my view in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U. S. 
___, ___–___ (2020) (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–54), I agree with 
JUSTICE GORSUCH’s concurrence in this case.  The plain text of Title VI 
reinforces the colorblind view of the Fourteenth Amendment.