About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (January 6, 2023)

handle is hein.crs/govekcb0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional______ Res'earch Service The Supreme Court Considers Affirmative Action: Arguments in the Cases Against Harvard and the University of North Carolina January 6, 2023 On October 31, 2022, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases addressing admissions in higher education: Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina. In each case, lower courts concluded that the universities made permissible, limited use of race to promote student body diversity, in line with Supreme Court precedent holding that institutions of higher education could, in some circumstances, consider race in admissions without running afoul of the Constitution's equal protection principles. The same petitioner asked the Court in each of the two cases to revisit and expressly overrule those previous holdings. In the alternative, the petitioner asked the Court to hold that the universities violated the constitutional rules established in existing precedent by allegedly overemphasizing race, disadvantaging Asian-American applicants, and rejecting viable race-neutral admissions procedures. This Sidebar considers the Court's history with racial classifications, the arguments presently before the Court, potential outcomes, and considerations for Congress. Precedent for Affirmative Action in Higher Education In 2003, building on a case decided in 1978, the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger held that the Constitution's equal protection principles allow limited consideration of race in higher education admissions. In general, equal protection requires that governments avoid distributing benefits or burdens based on race, unless those classifications meet a high bar. For justification, the government must identify a compelling government interest and show that its policy is narrowly tailored to pursue that interest. This test is known as strict scrutiny. Judges and commentators regularly observe that government classifications using race usually fail strict scrutiny and are held unconstitutional. In the cases before the Court and in the precedent at issue here, the parties do not dispute the use of race. Accordingly, this Sidebar does not address the legal meaning of race or considerations of whether a given classification qualifies as a racial one. Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10893 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most