Fisher v. Univ. of Texas (2013) 7-1 majority remanded the case for further review under a more demanding standard that will require colleges and universities to demonstrate that “available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice” before taking account of race in admissions decisions.

Fisher v. Univ. of Texas (2013) Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion: “Strict scrutiny does not permit a court to accept a school’s assertion that its admissions process uses race in a permissible way without a court giving close analysis to the evidence of how the process works in practice.”

Fisher v. Univ. of Texas (2013) Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion: “Grutter was a radical departure from our strict-scrutiny precedents. In Grutter, the University of Michigan Law School (Law School) claimed that it had a compelling reason to discriminate based on race. The reason it advanced did not concern protecting national security or remedying its own past discrimination.” “Contrary to the very meaning of strict scrutiny, the Court deferred to the Law School’s determination that this interest was sufficiently compelling to justify racial discrimination.” “I would overrule Grutter and hold that the University’s admissions program violates the Equal Protection Clause because the University has not put forward a compelling interest that could possibly justify racial discrimination.”

Fisher v. Univ. of Texas (2013) Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion: “The Court rightly declines to cast off the equal protection framework settled in Grutter. Yet it stops short of reaching the conclusion that framework warrants. Instead, the Court vacates the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remands for the Court of Appeals to ‘assess whether the University has offered sufficient evidence [to] prove that its admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educational benefits of diversity.’ As I see it, the Court of Appeals has already completed that inquiry. . . . For the reasons stated, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”