Appeals Court Rules In Harvard’s Favor In Admissions Lawsuit

The latest ruling in a yearslong lawsuit alleging that the College’s admissions process discriminates against Asian-Americans 

Photograph of demonstrators in front of the federal courthouse in Boston where the SFFA v. Harvard trial took place, with signs reading "Harvard No More Racial Stereotyping" and "My Race Should Not Hurt Me In Admissions.

In October 2018, supporters of Students for Fair Admissions hold signs in front of the federal courthouse where the admissions trial took place.

Photograph by Alamy Images

The First Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld Harvard’s use of race in admissions, the latest ruling in a yearslong lawsuit alleging that the College’s admissions process discriminates against Asian-Americans. The case, first filed in 2014 by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), may ultimately be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court and could reverse or alter decades of precedent on affirmative action in college admissions.  

The ruling upholds the October 2019 decision made by U.S. District Court judge Alison Burroughs. SFFA’s founder and president, affirmative-action opponent Edward Blum, quickly appealed that decision, and the First Circuit heard oral arguments in the appeal on September 16. 

In their 100-plus-page decision, First Circuit judges Jeffrey Howard and Sandra Lynch wrote that Harvard’s use of race in admissions is consistent with Supreme Court precedent, rejecting SFFA’s claims that Harvard “(1) engages in racial balancing of its undergraduate class; (2) it impermissibly uses race as more than a ‘plus’ factor in admissions decisions; (3) it considers race in its process despite the existence of workable race-neutral alternatives; and (4) it intentionally discriminates against Asian American applicants to Harvard College.” The ruling concludes that there was no error in Burroughs’s decision, and that Harvard’s use of race is sufficiently narrow, appropriately tailored to meet Harvard’s goal of assembling a diverse class, and does not evince evidence of implicit bias against Asian Americans.  

Blum vowed in response to appeal the First Circuit’s decision and take the case to the Supreme Court. Only that body can revisit the question of whether or not race can be used as a factor in admissions at all, or revise longstanding precedent that says that race can be used under certain circumstances. For a deeper look at the issues at stake in the case, listen to Harvard Magazine’s recent podcast episode featuring Jeannie Suk Gersen, Watson professor of law. 

“Just over a year ago, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs found in Harvard’s favor,” said University president Lawrence Bacow in a statement. Today, her decision—and the values that underlie our undergraduate admissions process—are reaffirmed. The consideration of race, alongside many other factors, helps us achieve our goal of creating a student body that enriches the education of every student. Diversity also represents a pathway for excellence for both Harvard and the nation. We will continue to defend these principles and our admissions process all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.”

“Today’s decision once again finds that Harvard’s admissions policies are consistent with Supreme Court precedent, and lawfully and appropriately pursue Harvard’s efforts to create a diverse campus that promotes learning and encourages mutual respect and understanding in our community,” University spokeswoman Rachael Dane said in a statement. “As we have said time and time again, now is not the time to turn back the clock on diversity and opportunity.”

Blum and SFFA took a second case, against the University of North Carolina, to trial this past Monday. By proceeding against Harvard and UNC, Blum has cases under way against a public and a private institution, raising different constitutional and civil-rights issues, which may lead to separate Supreme Court challenges to affirmative action.

Read more articles by Marina N. Bolotnikova

You might also like

Trump Says a Deal with Harvard Is Close

Administration squeezes Harvard finances, and a federal judge blasts deportation efforts as unconstitutional.

Harvard Football: Harvard 41, Brown 7

The Crimson assertively avenge last year’s loss to their Ivy rival.

What Happens When Infections Stop Responding to Antibiotics?

Harvard Medical School experts discuss the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance.

Most popular

Harvard’s Finances In a Challenging Year

The fiscal 2024 report details narrowing margins, but stronger endowment returns.

Harvard Art Historian Jennifer Roberts Teaches the Value of Immersive Attention

Teaching students the value of deceleration and immersive attention

Harvard Football: Harvard 59, Holy Cross 24

Another week, another blowout, this one against an in-state rival

Explore More From Current Issue

Illustrated world map showing people connected across countries with icons for ideas, research, and communication.

Why Harvard Needs International Students

An ed school professor on why global challenges demand global experiences

Illustration of scientists injecting large syringe with mitochondria into human heart.

Do Mitochondria Hold the Power to Heal?

From Alzheimer’s to cancer, this tiny organelle might expand treatment options. 

Whimsical illustration of students rushing through ornate campus gate from bus marked “Welcome New Students.”

Highlights from Harvard’s Past

The Medical School goes coed, University poet wins Nobel Prize.