Supreme Court sets date for UNC, Harvard affirmative action cases

The Supreme Court announced on Wednesday it would hear oral arguments for two high-profile affirmative action cases on October 31 that could challenge how universities use affirmative action in the admission process.

Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a non-profit that supports litigation against affirmative action policies, will lead the arguments against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) on the premise that their affirmative action policies discriminate against Asian and White students

The full bench will hear Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina first at 10:00 am. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, however, will not rule in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College due to her affiliation with the Ivy League school. 

Both rulings ask the court to reconsider the 2003 affirmative action case Grutter v. Bollinger, which ruled in favor of permitting colleges and universities to use race as a factor during the college admission process.

“Students for Fair Admissions looks forward to presenting our cases to the justices this October,” SFFA President Edward Blum told Campus Reform. “It is to be hoped the court forbids the use of racial classifications and preferences in admissions at all colleges and universities.”

[RELATED: OP-ED: SFFA v. UNC: It’s time to end race-conscious admissions policies]

The Supreme Court agreed to take up both cases in January in a consolidated hearing. However, it was announced in July that the cases would be separated to permit Brown-Jackson to rule on the UNC case. 

While both cases will review each university’s use of race in the selection of its students, each case will present the court with a different legal question. 

The Harvard case involves the question of whether or not the university violated Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race. 

The UNC case, on the other hand, will determine whether or not a “race-neutral” alternative can be rejected by the university “without proving that the alternative would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity.”

In preparation for the high bench hearing, both Harvard and UNC filed amicus briefs that asked the court to toss the cases on the basis that their policies are protected by precedent.

The UNC brief claims that the “historical record” of the Fourteenth Amendment allows for “appropriately tailored race-conscious decisionmaking.”

When asked for comment, UNC referred Campus Reform to Chancellor Kevin M. Guskiewicz’s statement where he praised the state school for practicing need-blind admissions.

“At Carolina, we have long been recognized for making an affordable, high-quality education broadly accessible to the people of North Carolina and beyond,” Guskiewicz said. “Carolina is passionately public, and we’re proud to be one of the few flagship universities to practice need-blind admissions and provide low-debt, full-need student aid. Our approach to admissions serves the University’s mission and reflects our core values. Every student earns their place at Carolina.”

[RELATED: College admissions SCOTUS case is about Anti-Asian discrimination, lawmakers argue in brief]

SFFA filed its original lawsuit against Harvard in 2014. However, it was rejected by a district court in Massachusetts in 2019. 

The group filed a similar complaint against the University of Texas at Austin in August of 2020, but the case was dismissed by the US District Court for the Western District of Texas. 

However, the case was revived by the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which ruled in June the case could continue.

Campus Reform contacted UNC, Harvard, and SFFA for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.

Follow @Alexaschwerha1 on Twitter