Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action in High-Profile University Case

The Supreme Court delivered a verdict Thursday on a high-profile case regarding the University of Texas's affirmative action admissions policy. This was the second time the court deliberated over this same case — choosing to send it back to a lower court in 2012 — so when the justices ruled to uphold the university's admissions policy in court on Thursday morning, it had been a long time coming. The ruling was a 4-3 decision, with three justices dissenting against the ruling that it is constitutional to weigh an applicant's race in the college admissions process.

Based on descriptions from the Supreme Court's official ruling, UT's affirmative action policy is limited — in fact, it would be better worded as "race-conscious."

The University of Texas at Austin (University) uses an undergraduate admissions system containing two components. First, as required by the State's Top Ten Percent Law, it offers admission to any students who graduate from a Texas high school in the top 10% of their class. It then fills the remainder of its incoming freshman class, some 25%, by combining an applicant's "Academic Index" — the student's SAT score and high school academic performance — with the applicant's "Personal Achievement Index," a holistic review containing numerous factors, including race.

The lead plaintiff of the case felt that her rejection from the University of Texas Austin was due to the race-conscious admissions policy of the school.

Petitioner Abigail Fisher, who was not in the top 10% of her high school class, was denied admission to the University's 2008 freshman class. She filed suit, alleging that the University's consideration of race as part of its holistic-review process disadvantaged her and other Caucasian applicants, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

The court denied Fisher's claim, ruling that the university's race-conscious admissions program is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause. However, in the ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy added: "The Court's affirmance of the University's admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University's ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies."

So while the use of affirmative action during the period of Abigail Fisher's admission is lawful, UT is expected to mold its admissions process as times change — and soon, that may mean rehashing its race-conscious admissions policy.