Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
The Court ruled that race-based affirmative action programs in most college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in a suit alleging Harvard's admissions discriminated against Asian Americans.· AI-written
600 U.S. 181 · No. 20-1199 · 2022 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 29, 2023 · argued Oct 31, 2022
Civil rights · Affirmative action
Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicityOverruled precedent
Majority opinion: John Roberts
The voteMajorityDissent
6–26 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Reversed. Students for Fair Admissions Inc. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.
Students for Fair Admissions Inc. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that race-based affirmative action programs in most college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With its companion case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), both of which validated some affirmative action in college admissions provided that race had a limited role in decisions.
In 2014, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard University in U.S. District Court in Boston, alleging that the university's undergraduate admission practices violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Asian Americans. In 2019, a district court judge upheld Harvard's limited use of race as a factor in admissions, citing lack of evidence of "discriminatory animus" or "conscious prejudice".
In 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. In 2021, SFFA petitioned the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. After the appointment of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers at the time, the cases were split, with Jackson recusing from the Harvard case while participating in the North Carolina one.
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Harvard that, by a vote of 6–2, reversed the lower court ruling. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts held that affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional. Because of the absence of U.S. military academies in the cases, the lack of relevant lower court rulings, and the potentially distinct interests that the military academies may present, the Court, limited by Article III, did not decide the fate of race-based affirmative action in military academies.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2022 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(6)
John RobertsWrote the majority opinion
Brett KavanaughWrote a concurrence
Neil GorsuchWrote a concurrence
Clarence ThomasWrote a concurrence
Amy BarrettJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
Sonia SotomayorWrote a dissent
Elena KaganJoined a dissent
Did not take part: Ketanji Jackson.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Students for Fair Admissions Inc.Public interest organization
- Respondent
- President & Fellows of Harvard CollegePrivate school, college, or university
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
- Precedent
- The Court overruled one of its own earlier decisions.
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 29, 2023DecidedDecided · Decided 6–2: reversed. Students for Fair Admissions Inc. won.
- Oct 31, 2022ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Massachusetts U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
24 other argued cases since 1946 on affirmative action, newest first.
- Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin579 U.S. 365Jun 23, 2016 · 579 U.S. 365Civil rights4–36–3 band
- Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative ActionLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity572 U.S. 291Apr 22, 2014 · 572 U.S. 291Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity6–27–2 band
- Abigail Noel Fisher, Petitioner v. University of Texas at Austin et al.570 U.S. 297Jun 24, 2013 · 570 U.S. 297Civil rights7–18–1 band
- Frank Ricci, et al. v. John Destefano et al.557 U.S. 557Jun 29, 2009 · 557 U.S. 557Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Barbara Grutter v. Lee Bollinger et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity539 U.S. 306Jun 23, 2003 · 539 U.S. 306Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity5–45–4 band
- Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher v. Lee Bollinger et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity539 U.S. 244Jun 23, 2003 · 539 U.S. 244Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity6–36–3 band
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Federico Pena, Secretary of Transportation, et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity515 U.S. 200Jun 12, 1995 · 515 U.S. 200Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity5–45–4 band
- Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.497 U.S. 547Jun 27, 1990 · 497 U.S. 547Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Martin et al. v. Wilks et al.490 U.S. 755Jun 12, 1989 · 490 U.S. 755Civil rights5–45–4 band
- City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company488 U.S. 469Jan 23, 1989 · 488 U.S. 469Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California, et al.480 U.S. 616Mar 24, 1987 · 480 U.S. 616Civil rights6–36–3 band
- United States v. Paradise et al.480 U.S. 149Feb 25, 1987 · 480 U.S. 149Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Local Number 93, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, C. L. C. v. City of Cleveland et al.478 U.S. 501Jul 2, 1986 · 478 U.S. 501Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association et al. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al.478 U.S. 421Jul 2, 1986 · 478 U.S. 421Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Wygant et al. v. Jackson Board of Education et al.476 U.S. 267May 19, 1986 · 476 U.S. 267Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts et al.467 U.S. 561Jun 12, 1984 · 467 U.S. 561Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Rossi et al.456 U.S. 25Mar 31, 1982 · 456 U.S. 25Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Minnick et al. v. California Department of Corrections et al.452 U.S. 105Jun 1, 1981 · 452 U.S. 105Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Fullilove et al. v. Klutznick, Secretary of Commerce, et al.448 U.S. 448Jul 2, 1980 · 448 U.S. 448Civil rights6–36–3 band
- United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber et al.443 U.S. 193Jun 27, 1979 · 443 U.S. 193Civil rights5–27–2 band
- Southeastern Community College v. Davis442 U.S. 397Jun 11, 1979 · 442 U.S. 397Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Regents of the University of California v. BakkeLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity438 U.S. 265Jun 26, 1978 · 438 U.S. 265Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity5–45–4 band
- Morton, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Mancari et al.417 U.S. 535Jun 17, 1974 · 417 U.S. 535Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Defunis et al. v. Odegaard et al.416 U.S. 312Apr 23, 1974 · 416 U.S. 312Civil rights5–45–4 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.