Strict Scrutiny & Fisher: The Court's Decision and its Implications

During the 2012-2013 term of the U.S. Supreme Court, many were in suspense over how the Court would rule on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the latest higher education case involving race-conscious admissions. Because it has been less than ten years since the Supreme Court ruled on Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, some expected the Court to overrule the use of race in deciding admissions into colleges and universities. Instead, the Supreme Court affirmed that diversity is a compelling state interest and race-conscious admissions are permissible under a strict scrutiny review. However, the Court remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit because it did not properly review the University’s admissions plan to determine whether it was narrowly tailored. In Fisher, Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian Texas resident, claimed that the University of Texas at Austin denied her admission because of her race and that other minority students with fewer qualifications were admitted instead of her. Affirming the district court’s opinion, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of the University presuming that the University’s decision to use race was made in good faith. The Supreme Court ruled that deference to the University under the narrow tailoring prong does not follow the standard of strict scrutiny. After briefly explaining the equal protection analysis and earlier Supreme Court decisions involving race-conscious admissions, we provide a background on the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin case and ruling. We further analyze the case under the strict scrutiny judicial review standard and explore how social science could play a role in determining the outcome. The article then expands on the ruling’s implications in higher education, K-12 education, private colleges and universities, and the hiring of faculty and teachers