Cases & Developments

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.   

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.