Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 108.0

2 

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 
AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
GORSUCH, J., concurring 

with  the  Civil  Rights  Act  of  1964.”    Bostock  v.  Clayton 
County, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 2).  Title VI of 
that law contains terms as powerful as they are easy to un-
derstand:  “No  person  in  the  United  States  shall,  on  the 
ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination  under  any  program  or  activity  receiving 
Federal financial assistance.”  42 U. S. C. §2000d.  The mes-
sage for these cases is unmistakable.  Students for Fair Ad-
missions (SFFA) brought claims against Harvard and UNC 
under  Title  VI.  That  law  applies  to  both  institutions,  as
they elect to receive millions of dollars of federal assistance
annually.  And  the  trial  records  reveal  that  both  schools 
routinely discriminate on the basis of race when choosing 
new students—exactly what the law forbids. 

A 

When a party seeks relief under a statute, our task is to 
apply  the  law’s  terms  as  a  reasonable  reader  would  have 
understood them at the time Congress enacted them.  “Af-
ter  all,  only  the  words  on  the  page  constitute  the  law 
adopted by Congress and approved by the President.”  Bos-
tock, 590 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 4).

The key phrases in Title VI at issue here are “subjected
to discrimination” and “on the ground of.”  Begin with the
first.  To  “discriminate”  against  a  person  meant  in  1964
what it means today:  to “trea[t] that individual worse than
others who are similarly situated.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 
7); see also Webster’s New International Dictionary 745 (2d 
ed. 1954) (“[t]o make a distinction” or “[t]o make a difference
in  treatment  or  favor  (of  one  as  compared  with  others)”); 
Webster’s  Third  New  International  Dictionary  648  (1961) 
(“to  make  a  difference  in  treatment  or  favor  on  a  class  or
categorical basis”).  The provision of Title VI before us, this
Court has also held, “prohibits only intentional discrimina-
tion.”  Alexander  v.  Sandoval,  532  U. S.  275,  280  (2001).