Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 123

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

17 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

is not who could hypothetically receive a race-based tip.  It 
is who actually receives one.  And on that score the lower 
courts left no doubt.  The district court in the Harvard case 
found that the school’s admissions policy “cannot . . . be con-
sidered  facially  neutral  from  a  Title  VI  perspective  given
that admissions officers provide [race-based] tips to African 
American and Hispanic applicants, while white and Asian 
American  applicants  are  unlikely  to  receive  a  meaningful 
race-based tip.”  397 F. Supp. 3d, at 190, n. 56; see also id., 
at  189–190  (“Harvard’s  admissions  process  is  not  facially 
neutral.”).  Likewise,  the  district  court  in  the  UNC  case 
found  that  admissions  officers  “sometimes”  award  race-
based plusses to URM candidates—a category that excludes
Asian  American  and  white  students.    567  F.  Supp.  3d,  at 
591–592, n. 7, 601.6 

Nor could anyone doubt that these cases are about inten-
tional  discrimination  just  because  Harvard  in  particular 
“ ‘does  not  explicitly  prioritize  any  particular  racial  group 
over any other.’ ”  Post, at 32, n. 27 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, 
J.) (emphasis added).  Forget for a moment the universities’ 
concessions about how they deliberately consult race when 
deciding whom to admit.  See supra, at 12–13.7  Look past 

—————— 

6 The principal dissent suggests “some Asian American applicants are
actually  advantaged  by  Harvard’s  use  of race.”    Post, at  60  (opinion  of 
SOTOMAYOR, J.) (internal quotation marks omitted).  What is the dissent’s 
basis for that claim?  The district court’s finding that “considering appli-
cants’ race may improve the admission chances of some Asian Americans 
who  connect  their  racial  identities  with  particularly  compelling  narra-
tives.”  397 F. Supp. 3d, at 178 (emphasis added).  The dissent neglects 
to mention those key qualifications.  Worse, it ignores completely the dis-
trict  court’s  further  finding that  “overall”  Harvard’s  race-conscious  ad-
missions policy “results in fewer Asian American[s] . . . being admitted.” 
Ibid. (emphasis added).  So much for affording the district court’s “careful 
factfinding” the “deference it [is] owe[d].”  Post, at 29–30, n. 25 (opinion 
of SOTOMAYOR, J.). 

7 See also, e.g., Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 20–1199, at 67, 84, 91; Tr. of Oral 

Arg. in No. 21–707, at 70–71, 81, 84, 91–92, 110.