Students for Fair Admissions vs. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is representing a diverse group of prospective and current students, as well as alumni, to showcase how the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s race-conscious admissions policy has helped to increase diversity and give all qualified students opportunities. The anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions insists UNC’s admissions policy unfairly uses race to give significant preference to underrepresented minority applicants, to the detriment of white and Asian American applicants.
The race-conscious admissions policy at UNC Chapel Hill follows Supreme-Court precedent, and we need to continue to expand on the progress we’ve made when it comes to diversity and inclusivity in the classroom. Race is an integral part of a students’ identity, and must be treated as such during the admissions process.
Case Timeline and Key Documents
October 31, 2022
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.
September 9, 2022
Supreme Court granted Lawyers’ Committee motion for oral argument time.
August 3, 2022
Supreme Court set oral argument for October 31st.
August 1, 2022
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
July 25, 2022
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.
July 22, 2022
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.
November 9, 2020
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.
October 20, 2020
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.
September 30, 2019
The trial court judge denies summary judgment and orders the case to go to trial.
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.
January 13, 2017
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.
June 30, 2015
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.
November 27, 2014
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.