Cases & Developments

Judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff, a membership association created to challenge the use of race in admissions, challenged the U.S. Naval Academy’s race-conscious admissions practices, alleging violation of Fifth Amendment equal protection principles. After a two-week bench trial, the Court upheld the Academy’s race-conscious admissions policies, finding the government has a compelling interest in a diverse Officer Corps, and the Academy, serves as a vital pipeline to the Officer Corps. It also found that the Academy has made a serious, good faith effort to consider race-neutral alternatives, and that plaintiffs failed to prove any racial balancing or racial quotas conducted by the Academy. 

Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a membership association created to challenge the use of race in admissions, challenged the Naval Academy’s race-conscious admissions practices, alleging violation of Fifth Amendment equal protection principles. Plaintiff brought four members of the association, all asserting to be “able and ready” to reapply following their rejection to the Academy for allegedly being medically or academically unqualified. Although the Academy asserts that neither race nor ethnicity plays any role in their qualification and selection process, the court found that “the Naval Academy considers race in its admissions process, and the injury alleged by plaintiff’s members is the denial of the opportunity to compete for admission on an equal basis.” Further, the court concluded that because Plaintiff sufficiently identified at least one member who was previously rejected and is “able and ready” to reapply to the Academy, it has Article III standing to challenge the Academy’s alleged race-conscious admission practices. A two-week bench trial is set to begin on September 16th, 2024.  

Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Mootness. Plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions, sued the University of Texas at Austin in July 2020, alleging that the University’s admissions policies impermissibly consider race in violation of Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause. After the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA v. Harvard-UNC, the University revised its admissions process to eliminate consideration of race and ethnicity as factors in admissions decisions and “created new processes to train and supervise its admissions officers and employees to ensure that they do not consider race or ethnicity as a factor in the admissions process.” In granting dismissal for mootness, the court held that this policy is lawful. It further held that because the policy change was compelled by law, the voluntary cessation doctrine does not apply and the assertion that the “requested injunctive relief impedes mootness is unavailing.” It also held that because “nothing in the record indicates that UT Austin has any intention of reverting to its prior admissions practices,” issuing an injunction barring them from doing so “would be nonsensical.”    

Order denying Plaintiff’s Emergency Application for Injunction Pending Appeal. Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., brought a Fifth Amendment claim against the United States Military Academy at West Point, the Department of Defense, and multiple officials, alleging that the use of racial classifications in West Point’s admissions process cannot satisfy strict scrutiny as considered and applied in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. The district court denied a preliminary injunction. In denying the application, the Supreme Court noted, “[t]he record before this Court is underdeveloped, and this order should not be construed as expressing any view on the merits of the constitutional question.”   

Memorandum Opinion denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., brought a Fifth Amendment challenge against the United States Naval Academy and multiple officials, alleging that the Naval Academy’s race conscious admissions practices cannot survive strict scrutiny. In denying a preliminary injunction, the court held that the Naval Academy is due more deference than a public or private university, citing the explicit caveat for military academies in the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. Noting the objectives served by the military’s determination that “a diverse officer corps is critical to cohesion and lethality, to recruitment, to retention, and to the military’s legitimacy in the eyes of the nation and the world” differ from the interest in educational benefits approved in Grutter and rejected in Harvard, the court was unprepared to conclude that the Naval Academy’s use of race was incoherent, that Grutter’s purported 25-year time limit applied, or that the Naval Academy presumed stereotypically that there is “an inherent benefit in race qua race.” The court was also unpersuaded as this stage that the Naval Academy used race or ethnicity as a negative or that it had not sufficiently considered race-neutral alternatives. Given this, the court further found that plaintiff had not established the likelihood of irreparable harm or that the balance of equities or the public interest favored an injunction.   

Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., brought a Fifth Amendment claim against the United States Military Academy at West Point, the Department of Defense, and multiple officials, alleging that the use of racial classifications in West Point’s admissions process cannot satisfy strict scrutiny as considered and applied in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. In denying a preliminary injunction, the court declined plaintiff’s suggestion that no interest asserted by defendants could be constitutional under Harvard, finding that the “patchwork of information” plaintiff assembled was insufficient to warrant injunctive relief and instead created questions of fact regarding the military’s assertion that consideration of race “(1) fosters cohesion and lethality; (2) aids in recruitment of top talent; (3) increases retention; and (4) bolsters the Army’s legitimacy in the eyes of the nation and the world.” The court likewise held plaintiff had not shown that the alleged harm resulting from the admissions program is a constitutional deprivation. Finally, in finding that plaintiff had not shown that the balance of equities tips in its favor or that preliminary injunction is in the public interest, the court noted that an injunction would disrupt two admissions cycles and possibly require West Point to withdraw offered appointments.