Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit alleged that Harvard's undergraduate admissions practices intentionally discriminated against Asian Americans and that race was used as a determining factor in the evaluation process, violating federal law.

Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) argued that statistical and anecdotal evidence of implicit bias in the evaluation process showed intentional discrimination against Asian Americans at Harvard. They claimed Harvard's use of race in admissions led to racial balancing, admitting similar percentages of racial cohorts each year to achieve a desired composition. Plaintiffs also argued that race-neutral policies would be as effective, making a race-conscious program unnecessary.

Harvard argued that SFFA lacked standing because its founder did not have a direct, personal stake in the case, and the purported members of SFFA were not true members with a real role in the organization. They maintained that Harvard did not practice racial balancing but used race flexibly as one of many factors in a holistic assessment, which was permissible based on Supreme Court precedent. Lastly, they countered that SFFA failed to show evidence of discrimination against Asian Americans, asserting that Harvard valued the diversity Asian-American students brought to its campus.

On September 30, 2019, after a trial, the judge ruled in favor of Harvard. They concluded that while SFFA had standing, Harvard was not engaging in racial balancing, its use of race in admissions was permissible, there were no adequate or workable race-neutral alternatives, and Harvard was not intentionally discriminating against Asian Americans.