Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

to the litigants and the courts that heard the case requires 
that  it  be  remanded  so  that  the  admissions  process  can
be  considered  and  judged  under  a  correct  analysis.    See 
Adarand, supra, at 237.  Unlike Grutter, which was decided 
after  trial,  this  case  arises  from  cross-motions  for  sum-
mary  judgment.    In  this  case,  as  in  similar  cases,  in  de-
termining  whether  summary  judgment  in  favor  of  the 
University  would  be  appropriate,  the  Court  of  Appeals
must assess whether the University has offered sufficient
evidence that would prove that its admissions program is
narrowly  tailored  to  obtain  the  educational  benefits  of
diversity.  Whether  this  record—and  not  “simple  . . .  as-
surances  of  good  intention,”  Croson,  supra,  at  500—is 
sufficient is a question for the Court of Appeals in the first
instance. 

* 

* 

* 
Strict scrutiny must not be “ ‘strict in theory, but fatal in 
fact,’ ”  Adarand,  supra,  at  237;  see  also  Grutter,  supra,  at 
326.  But  the  opposite  is  also  true.    Strict  scrutiny  must
not be strict in theory but feeble in fact.  In order for judi-
cial  review  to  be  meaningful,  a  university  must  make  a 
showing  that  its  plan  is  narrowly  tailored  to  achieve  the 
only interest that this Court has approved in this context:
the benefits of a student body diversity that “encompasses 
a . . . broa[d] array of qualifications and characteristics of
which  racial  or  ethnic  origin  is  but  a  single  though  im-
portant  element.”  Bakke,  438  U. S.,  at  315  (opinion  of 
Powell,  J.).  The  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  is  va-
cated,  and  the  case  is  remanded  for  further  proceedings
consistent with this opinion. 

 JUSTICE  KAGAN  took  no  part  in  the  consideration  or 

decision of this case. 

It is so ordered.