Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 19

2 

FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

a  compelling  governmental  interest’ ”  and  “narrowly  tai-
lored  to  that  end.”  Johnson  v.  California,  543  U. S.  499, 
514  (2005)  (quoting  Grutter,  supra,  at  327).    This  most 
exacting  standard  “has  proven  automatically  fatal”  in 
almost  every  case.  Jenkins,  supra,  at  121  (THOMAS,  J., 
concurring).    And  rightly  so.    “Purchased  at  the  price  of 
immeasurable  human  suffering,  the  equal  protection
principle  reflects  our  Nation’s  understanding  that  [racial] 
classifications ultimately have a destructive impact on the
individual and our society.”  Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. 
Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 240 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring in
part  and  concurring  in  judgment).    “The  Constitution 
abhors  classifications  based  on  race”  because  “every  time
the  government  places  citizens  on  racial  registers  and 
makes  race  relevant  to  the  provision  of  burdens  or  bene-
fits,  it  demeans  us  all.”    Grutter,  supra,  at  353  (THOMAS, 
J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 

B 
1 
The  Court  first  articulated  the  strict-scrutiny  standard 
in  Korematsu  v.  United  States,  323  U. S.  214  (1944).
There, we held that “[p]ressing public necessity may some-
times justify the existence of [racial discrimination]; racial
antagonism never can.”  Id., at 216.1  Aside from Grutter, 
the  Court  has  recognized  only  two  instances  in  which  a 
“[p]ressing public necessity” may justify racial discrimina-
tion  by  the  government.    First,  in  Korematsu,  the  Court 
recognized  that  protecting  national  security  may  satisfy
this exacting standard.  In that case, the Court upheld an
evacuation  order  directed  at  “all  persons  of  Japanese
ancestry” on the grounds that the Nation was at war with
Japan  and  that  the  order  had  “a  definite  and  close  rela-

—————— 

1 The standard of “pressing public necessity” is more frequently called
a “compelling governmental interest.”  I use the terms interchangeably.