Race in college admissions
Abigail Noel Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
In brief
The Supreme Court agreed with the Fifth Circuit that UT’s admissions program in place when Fisher applied was lawful.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · June 23, 2016 · Opinion by Justice Kennedy
- What it’s about
- Abigail Fisher challenged the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race as one factor when reviewing applications for seats not filled through its Top Ten Percent Plan.
- Who it affects
- The decision upheld the specific University of Texas admissions program Fisher challenged, as it operated when she applied.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that the admissions program in place when Fisher applied was lawful under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
UT’s admissions system included both a Top Ten Percent Plan and a separate holistic review.
Question presented
Does the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
What the Court decided
Holding
The race-conscious admissions program in use at the time of petitioner’s application is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause. 758 F. 3d 633, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
- Majority author
- Anthony M. Kennedy
- Majority
- Stephen G. Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor
- Dissenting
- Clarence Thomas, John G. Roberts, Jr., Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
From the opinions
“On remand, UT failed to do what our prior decision demanded.”
What's next
Fisher’s challenge is resolved; the decision addressed only the admissions program in effect when she applied.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Fisher II
More questions
- What role did the Top Ten Percent Plan play in the challenged review?
- UT used the race-conscious review to fill seats not filled through that plan.
- What did Justice Alito say UT had failed to do?
- He said UT had not clearly identified the interests its use of race was meant to serve, as the Court’s earlier ruling required.
- What did Justice Thomas argue separately?
- He argued that the Equal Protection Clause bars states from considering race in higher-education admissions.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.