1. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin Lorraine Jones Yu Sun

2. Facts Abigail Noel FISHER, Petitioner Caucasian applicant, Abigail Noel FISHER, who was denied admission to state university brought suit alleging that university's consideration of race in its admissions process violated her right to equal protection. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN et al., respondent In response to the OCR violoation and a long history of pervasive discrimation the University Of Texas adpoted three programs to help them achieve their goals. (1) The Top Ten Percent Law grants automatic admission to any public state college, including the University, to all students in the top 10% of their class at high schools in Texas that comply with certain standards.

3. Facts (Cont.) (2) In addition to the Top Ten percent policy, University of Texas also adopted two other program to address the Universty goals.This included evaluating student on a Personal Achievement Index. “Personal Achievement Index” (PAI) measures a student's leadership and work experience, awards, extracurricular activities, community service, and other special circumstances that give insight into a student's background. In addition, growing up in a single-parent home, speaking a language other than English at home, significant family responsibilities assumed by the applicant, and the general socioeconomic condition of the student's family and (3) race. However, race is not given an assigned explicit numerical value. In response to the Court's decisions in Grutter, the University adopted this admission program the 2004 program in which the University reverted to explicit consideration of race. This is the program here at issue. Grutte Once applications have been scored, they are plotted on a grid with the Academic Index (AI) on the x-axis and the Personal Achievement Index (PAI) on the y-axis.

4. Procedural History The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted university summary judgment. Applicant appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, affirmed. Certiorari was granted.

5. Legal Issue Did the lower courts apply strict scrutiny rightly? ( Do the race conscious admission policies to achieve “critical mass” violate Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause? -compelling interest? -narrowly tailored? ) http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2012/11-345

6. Arguments No: “It (the lower court) presumed that the school had acted in good faith and gave petitioner the burden of rebutting that presumption. University receives no judicial deference in its choice of means to attain its goal of racial diversity in admissions, rather, it is for courts to ensure that means chosen are specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish university's asserted purpose, as re- quired by Equal Protection Clause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.” -- Justice Kennedy Yes: “Accordingly, I would not return this case for a second look. As the thorough opinions below show, 631 F.3d 213 (C.A.5 2011); 645 F.Supp.2d 587, the University's admissions policy flexibly considers race only as a “factor of a factor of a factor of a factor” in the calculus.” -- Justice Ginsburg 631 F.3d 213 (C.A.5 2011) 645 F.Supp.2d 587,

7. Holding The Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy, held that Court of Appeals did not apply correct standard of strict scrutiny. Because the Fifth Circuit did not hold the University to the demanding burden of strict scrutiny. Vacated and remanded. Justices Scalia and Thomas filed concurring opinions. Justice Ginsburg filed dissenting opinion. Justice Kagan took no part in consideration or decision of the case.

8. Is there any discrepancy in the legal issue and the holding? Did the holding address all the legal issue in this case?

9. Activity: Mock Trial What is the legal issues in this case? As Supreme Court Justices, what will be you final holdings?

10. Majority opinion: O’Connor, Joined by : Stevens, Ginsbrug, Breyer, Souter Disagreed: Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) 5 - 4

11. --4 Justices saying no compelling interest and not narrowly tailored (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) --4 Justices saying compelling interest and narrowly tailored (Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg) --1 Justice, justice Kennedy: there is a compelling interest, but not narrowly tailored Parents Involved v. Meredith (2006) 4-1-4

12. Antonin Scalia, 1986 Anthony Kennedy, 1988 Clarence Thomas, 1991 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 1993 Stephen Breyer, 1994 Chief Justice John Roberts, 2005 Samuel Alito, 2006 Sonia Sotomayor, 2009 Elena Kagan, 2010

13. Thank you!