The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases challenging the race-conscious admissions programs of University of North Carolina and Harvard. David Hinojosa, director of the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law argued before the Court in defense of UNC’s race-conscious admissions program on behalf of students and alumni.

Read our press release

Supreme Court granted Lawyers’ Committee motion for oral argument time.

Read our press release

Supreme Court set oral argument for October 31st.

Amicus briefs submitted to the Court.

Read the following sampling of briefs in support of race-conscious admissions: 

• Major American Businesses and Corporations
• Thirty-eight Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander-serving organizations
• Thirty-five top former military leaders, including four chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
• Healthcare professionals and organizations, including medical schools
• Sixty-five Members of Congress
• Admissions and testing professionals

Lawyers’ Committee, representing Student-Intervenors, and UNC submit their briefs defending race-conscious admissions and nearly 45 years of established legal precedent, which allows colleges to consider the race of highly-qualified applicants in admissions to promote the benefits of diverse learning environments.

• Read our merits brief on behalf of Students at UNC
• Read our press release

SFFA files its brief at the Supreme Court seeking to end affirmative action in higher education, closing doors of opportunity to many talented students of color who face racial barriers and contribute to our national progress every day.

• Read our press release

• See our press release
• Learn more at NPR

• Read our press release
• Read the story at the New York Times

All groups submit their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and wait for a ruling from the court.

• Student-Intervenors’ post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law.  
• UNC’s post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law. 
• SFFA’s post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law. 
• Student-Intervenors’ response to SFFA’s post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law. 
• UNC’s response to SFFA’s post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law. 
• SFFA’s response to post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

The two-week trial is held before the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The national Lawyers’ Committee and the North Carolina Justice Center and co-counsel present eight Black and Latinx students/alumni who testify powerfully about how their race and ethnicity is inseparable from their experiences and identity. Students also present two expert reports and several student and alumni declarations discussing the benefits of diversity they have experienced as well as the continuing challenges presented by lower levels of diversity and the sociohistorical history and ongoing effects of racism and discrimination on campus.  The parties are expected to file post-trial briefs to the court in February 2021.

• Read the press release. 
• Read the story from The News & Observer newspaper.
• Read the story from The New York Times.

The court issues its Trial Protocol to ensure the safety and health of court staff, the parties, witnesses and attendants in light of COVID-19 risks. The court further permits certain witnesses to testify remotely and others by submission of declarations and expert reports. 

• Read the trial protocol. 

The trial court judge denies summary judgment and orders the case to go to trial.

• Read the court order.

The parties submit competing summary judgment motions briefs arguing why they should win the case without a trial.  

• UNC-Chapel Hill’s memo in support of motion for summary judgment. 
• SFFA’s brief in support of motion for summary judgment. 
• North Carolina businesses amicus brief in support of UNC-Chapel Hill’s motion for summary judgment. 
• UNC-Chapel Hill’s memo in opposition to SFFA’s motion for summary judgment. 
• Lawyers’ Committee’s memo in response to SFFA’s motion for summary judgment. 

The court grants the motion to intervene, finding that this case’s result will have a direct and significant impact on North Carolinians’ access to their state’s public flagship institution. This status allows the students and alumni that the national Lawyers’ Committee represents to demonstrate the specific need for UNC-Chapel Hill to consider race as part of its admissions process by presenting as evidence the history of segregation and discrimination in North Carolina and at UNC-Chapel Hill and its present effects on the campus environment and the effect of UNC’s admissions processes on student body diversity.  

• Read the court order. 

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the North Carolina Justice Center and pro bono counsel, Relman, Dane, & Colfax PLLC, file a motion to intervene on behalf of students to defend the limited, but meaningful inclusion of race—as one factor among many factors—to increase diversity and afford opportunities to all qualified students at UNC-Chapel Hill. The national Lawyers’ Committee and co-counsel represent a diverse group of prospective and current students, as well as UNC-Chapel Hill alumni.  

• Read the motion to intervene. 
• Read SFFA’s motion in opposition to intervention. 
• Read the Lawyers’ Committee response to SFFA’s opposition.  

Anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum and his organization, Students for Fair Admissions, files a lawsuit in United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The lawsuit targets the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s race-conscious admissions policy, claiming the policy violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It asserts that UNC unfairly uses race to give significant preference to underrepresented minority applicants to the detriment of white and Asian American applicants, while ignoring race-neutral alternatives for achieving a diverse student body. 

• Read the lawsuit. 
• Read UNC’s response to the lawsuit. 
• Read the story from The New York Times.
• Read the story from The Chronicle of Higher Education.