Fisher Case: Constitutional Challenge And Affirmative Action

In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the constitutional issue at stake was whether the University's admissions policy, which considered race as one of many factors, was constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Abigail Noel Fisher, the petitioner, argued that the University's policy violated the Equal Protection Clause as it allowed the University to consider race when admitting students. The Supreme Court's decision in this case did not set new limits on the use of race in university admissions but affirmed that the University's race-conscious admissions program was lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.

Explore related products

Constitutional Dialogues: Interpretation as Political Process (Princeton Legacy Library)

$148.11

Political Dynamics of Constitutional Law (Coursebook)

$119

Nazi Saboteurs on Trial: A Military Tribunal and American Law (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$21.03 $29.99

Constitutional Structures: Separated Powers and Federalism (American Constitutional Law)

$80.65

The Trial of the Constitution

$8.95 $20.95

In the Name of National Security: Unchecked Presidential Power and the Reynolds Case

$52.24 $54.99

The constitutionality of UT-Austin's admissions policy

In 2008, Abigail Noel Fisher applied to the University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin). UT-Austin's admissions policy at the time considered race as one of many factors in selecting a diverse range of academically accomplished students. Fisher was not admitted to the university, and she subsequently challenged its admissions policy, arguing that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The case, known as Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin or Fisher v. University of Texas II, was heard by the Supreme Court, which considered the constitutionality of UT-Austin's admissions policy. The Court's decision focused on whether the university's race-conscious admissions program was lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.

The lower courts initially rejected Fisher's claim that UT-Austin's policy violated the Equal Protection Clause. However, the Supreme Court granted review and, in a 7-1 decision in 2013, sent the case back to the lower court for further consideration. The Court's ruling clarified the strict scrutiny standard for analyzing the university's policy but did not decide on the constitutionality of the policy itself, leaving that determination to the lower courts.

On July 15, 2014, the Fifth Circuit upheld UT-Austin's admissions policy, and Fisher appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court granted Fisher's petition and heard oral arguments on December 9, 2015. On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision, affirming that UT-Austin's race-conscious admissions program was lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.

The case sparked discussions about affirmative action and the role of race in university admissions, with some dissenting opinions from Supreme Court justices.

The use of race as a factor in university admissions

In the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the constitutional issue centred on the use of race as a factor in university admissions. Abigail Noel Fisher applied to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 and was denied admission. She challenged the university's admissions policy, arguing that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The university's holistic admissions policy considered race as one factor among many in selecting a diverse student body.

The University of Texas at Austin's admissions policy aimed to ensure a diverse, academically accomplished student body. The university argued that its sensitive use of race in admissions was constitutionally permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Reconstruction Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment enacted race-conscious legislation to guarantee equality of opportunity for all, regardless of race. The university's defenders contended that the Fourteenth Amendment permits governments to enact race-conscious measures to ensure equality of opportunity and that the university's policy fell within this scope.

Fisher's case against the University of Texas at Austin was heard by the Supreme Court on two occasions, known as Fisher I and Fisher II. In Fisher I, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court for further review, with Justice Kagan recused. The lower courts upheld the university's policy, and the case returned to the Supreme Court as Fisher II. On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision, affirming the race-conscious admissions program used by the University of Texas at Austin when Fisher applied in 2008 as lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.

The Supreme Court's decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin did not set new limits on the use of race in university admissions. The Court left intact its prior precedents, which allowed the use of race as one factor among many in university admissions. The constitutionality of the University of Texas at Austin's specific policy was not decided by the Supreme Court, but by the lower courts. The case highlighted the ongoing debate surrounding affirmative action and the role of race in university admissions, with dissenting opinions from Justices Thomas and Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts.

The applicability of the Equal Protection Clause

In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the Supreme Court considered whether the University's admissions policy, which considers race as one factor among many in selecting students, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". In the context of education, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that racial classifications in admissions policies are subject to strict scrutiny, meaning that they must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

The University of Texas at Austin's admissions policy, which was in use when Abigail Fisher applied to the school in 2008, considers race as one factor among many in selecting a diverse student body. The University argued that its policy was constitutional because it was sensitive to race and designed to ensure a diverse student body, which the University believed was permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment. The lower courts agreed with the University and upheld the policy.

The Supreme Court granted review of the case and, in a 4-3 decision, affirmed the lower courts' rulings. The Court held that the University's race-conscious admissions program was lawful under the Equal Protection Clause. Justices Thomas and Alito filed dissenting opinions, while Justice Kagan did not participate in the discussion or decision of the case.

Explore related products

Local Government Law

$25.58 $45.99

The Fall of Affirmative Action: Race, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Higher Education

$18 $14.99

The Affirmative Action Myth: Why Blacks Don't Need Racial Preferences to Succeed

$17.7 $30

When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America

$17.69 $17.05

The Affirmative Action Puzzle: A Living History from Reconstruction to Today

$14.8 $35

Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It

$19.99

The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment

The case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, centred on the University's admissions policy, which considered race as one of several factors in selecting students. Abigail Noel Fisher, the petitioner, argued that this policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it allowed the University to make admission decisions based on race.

The University's admissions policy aimed to ensure a diverse and academically accomplished student body. The University of Texas at Austin's holistic admissions approach was defended as constitutional by the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC). They argued that the Fourteenth Amendment's text and history, along with Supreme Court case law, supported the University's race-conscious admissions policy. CAC maintained that the Fourteenth Amendment's framers intended to guarantee equality of opportunity for all, regardless of race, and that the University's policy provided pathways to professional life and leadership for a diverse range of students.

The Supreme Court, in a 7-1 decision, sent the case back to the lower court for further review. The Court's ruling clarified the strict scrutiny standard for admissions policies but did not set new limits on the use of race as an admissions factor. The Court upheld its prior precedents, including Bakke and Grutter, which allowed race to be considered in university admissions decisions.

The role of affirmative action in higher education

The Fisher case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, is centred on the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education. The case was brought by Abigail Noel Fisher, who applied to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 and was denied admission. Fisher alleged that the University's race-conscious admissions policy, which considered race as one factor among many in its holistic admissions process, was unlawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The University's admissions policy aimed to promote diversity and equality of opportunity by considering an applicant's race as one of many factors in the admissions process. This approach is rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment, which, as argued by the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC), permits governments to enact race-conscious measures to ensure equality of opportunity for all, regardless of race. The CAC's brief highlighted that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment enacted race-conscious legislation to guarantee equality of opportunity.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case did not set new limits on the use of race in university admissions. Instead, it upheld the University's admissions policy as lawful under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court's ruling affirmed that universities could consider race as one factor among many in their admissions processes to foster a diverse and academically accomplished student body.

The Fisher case highlights the ongoing debate surrounding affirmative action in higher education. While some argue that race-conscious admissions policies are necessary to promote diversity and equality of opportunity, others believe that such policies violate the Equal Protection Clause by unfairly considering an applicant's race. This case sets a precedent for universities to continue using race as one factor in their admissions processes, provided it is part of a holistic evaluation.

Frequently asked questions