Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Page Number: 169

30  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

2 

Harvard’s admissions program is also narrowly tailored 
under settled law.  SFFA argues that Harvard’s program is
not narrowly tailored because the university “has workable 
race-neutral  alternatives,”  “does  not  use  race  as  a  mere 
plus,”  and  “engages  in  racial  balancing.”    Brief  for  Peti-
tioner 75–83.  As the First Circuit concluded, there was “no 
error” in the District Court’s findings on any of these issues. 
Harvard II, 980 F. 3d, at 204.26 

Like  UNC,  Harvard  has  already  implemented  many  of
SFFA’s  proposals,  such  as  increasing  recruitment  efforts
and financial aid for low-income students.  Id., at 193.  Also 
like UNC, Harvard “carefully considered” other race-neutral 
ways  to  achieve  its  diversity  goals,  but  none  of  them  are 
“workable.”  Id., at 193–194.  SFFA’s argument before this 
Court  is  that  Harvard  should  adopt  a  plan  designed  by
SFFA’s expert for purposes of trial, which increases prefer-
ences for low-income applicants and eliminates the use of 
race and legacy preferences.  Id., at 193; Brief for Petitioner 

—————— 
572 U. S. 291, 384–390 (2014) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting); see infra, at 
63–64.    In  addition,  UNC  “already  engages”  in  race-neutral  efforts  fo-
cused on socioeconomic status, including providing “exceptional levels of 
financial  aid”  and  “increased  and  targeted  recruiting.”  UNC,  567 
F. Supp. 3d, at 665.

JUSTICE GORSUCH argues that he is simply “recount[ing] what SFFA 
has argued.”  Ante, at 14, n. 4.  That is precisely the point: SFFA’s argu-
ments were not credited by the court below.  “[W]e are a court of review, 
not of first view.”  Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005).
JUSTICE GORSUCH also suggests it is inappropriate for the dissent to re-
spond to the majority by relying on materials beyond the findings of fact
below.  Ante, at 14, n. 4.  There would be no need for the dissent to do 
that if the majority stuck to reviewing the District Court’s careful fact-
finding with the deference it owes to the trial court.  Because the majority 
has made a different choice, the dissent responds. 

26 SFFA also argues that Harvard discriminates against Asian Ameri-
can students.  Brief for Petitioner 72–75.  As explained below, this claim 
does not fit under Grutter’s strict scrutiny framework, and the courts be-
low did not err in rejecting that claim.  See infra, at 59–60.