Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al | Advancing DEI Initiative

About Cases Methodology Resources In the Media

GLOSSARY

The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.

A written request made after a trial court’s final ruling, asking another court to review the trial court's decisions. Appellate courts typically decide whether a legal mistake was made and whether the mistake changed the outcome of the case.

An out-of-court procedure for resolving disputes in which one or more people, “arbitrator(s),” hear evidence and make a decision. It's like a trial in some ways, but typically proceeds more quickly and with less formality.

A lawsuit in which a large number of people with similar legal claims join together (the class) to sue. In this context, it likely refers to cases in which a group of people claim they have suffered discrimination at the hands of an organization.

A document filed in court that starts a lawsuit. In some states and in some types of legal actions, the complaint is called a petition.

The person or entity against whom a civil case is filed.

A court order requiring a person to do or stop doing a specific action.

Harm done to a person or organization by the acts or omissions of another. Injury may be physical or may involve damage to reputation, loss of a legal right, or breach of a contract.

An appeal that occurs before the trial court's final ruling on an entire case.

Any party to a lawsuit. This might include a plaintiff, defendant, petitioner, respondent, cross-complainant, or cross-defendant, but not a witness or attorney.

The process of bringing and pursuing (litigating) a lawsuit.

A formal request, either written or oral, that a judge enter a particular order or ruling in a lawsuit.

A motion asking the judge to throw out one or more claims or an entire lawsuit.

These phrases refer to a case whose decision rests upon the law as it applied to the particular evidence and facts presented. This is in opposition to cases whose decisions rest upon procedural grounds (e.g. not filing a timely complaint).

The person, corporation, or other legal entity that initiates a lawsuit seeking damages, enforcement of a contract, or a court determination of rights. In certain states and for some types of lawsuits, the term petitioner is used instead.

Any legal document filed in a lawsuit, including the complaint, answer, and motion(s). The pleading stage gives notice to both parties of the intention of the opposing party regarding the lawsuit.

An opinion of a federal or state court of appeals establishing a legal principle or rule that must be followed by lower courts when faced with similar legal issues.

A court order early in a lawsuit that prohibits the parties from taking a disputed action until the court can decide the merits of the case.

A document that public companies must provide their shareholders prior to a shareholder meeting. The document summarizes proposals submitted to shareholders for a vote.

Punishment of an employee by an employer for engaging in legally protected activity like making a complaint of harassment or participating in workplace investigations. It can include any negative job action, such as demotion, discipline, or firing.

A person's right to sue and have a court rule on their claims. To invoke a federal court's jurisdiction and have the court exercise its remedial powers on their behalf, a person must have standing.

A final decision by a judge, upon a party's motion, that resolves a lawsuit before there is a trial.

CASE NAME

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al

Download Opinionarrow_circle_right

Overview

Plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) argued that Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC)'s race-conscious admissions programs violated Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause.

Details

In the case of Harvard, both the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the First Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Harvard's consideration of race in the admissions process was permissible because it was used flexibly and as part of a holistic assessment of applicants, in line with past Supreme Court rulings. Similarly, in the case of UNC, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina concluded that UNC's use of race complied with federal and constitutional law.

After SFFA appealed to the Supreme Court in February (Harvard) and in November (UNC) of 2021, both cases were consolidated for review by the Supreme Court.

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that both Harvard and UNC's consideration of race in admissions violated Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause. In doing so, the Court overruled its own precedent, which had previously allowed race-conscious admissions programs under certain circumstances. The Court determined that classifying applicants by race, for any purpose, was discriminatory and that Harvard and UNC's use of race reinforced negative stereotypes about racial groups.

Court

U.S. Supreme Court

Status

Filed February 25, 2021 | Decided

Relevant Law

Equal Protection Clause Title VI

Topic

School and university admissions

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University Of North Carolina, et al (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina)

Litigation History

U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts

arrow_circle_right

First Circuit Court of Appeals

arrow_circle_right

Significance

This case could provide insight into how the Supreme Court's anti-classification stance might impact race-conscious DEI programs if such a case is ever brought before the Court.