The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases challenging the race-conscious admissions programs of Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

Read our press release

Supreme Court set oral argument for October 31st.

Amicus briefs submitted to the Court.

• Read our brief on behalf of Students and Alumni at Harvard
• Read our press release
• Other 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

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
• Read more about it at NPR

The Justice Department advises the Court to deny the petition for certiorari asserting that “no sound reason” existed for reviewing the case and SFFA’s desire to overturn 40+ years of precedent lacks merit.

• Read the Solicitor General’s filing

The First Circuit rules in a 2-0 decision that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy must be upheld. The court found that Harvard’s policy is consistent with Supreme Court precedent for diversity requirements, and concluded that the race-neutral alternatives presented by SFFA were not sufficient. The opinion cites supporting testimony and evidence from students in rendering its decision. 

• Read the decision. 
• Read the press release.

The national Lawyers’ Committee participates in oral arguments before the First Circuit on behalf of the diverse group of prospective, current, and former Harvard students. The national Lawyers’ Committee and students defend Harvard’s right to consider race in admissions to promote diversity and equal opportunity. 

• Listen to the oral arguments. 
• Read the press release. 

Students file a motion seeking to participate in oral argument before the First Circuit.  On July 31, 2020, the First Circuits grants the motion, along with motions filed by the NAACP-LDF and the United States of America.  

• Read First Circuit order granting motions.  

 Students file their amicus brief in support of Harvard in the First Circuit, demonstrating how critical testimony and evidence presented by students demonstrated how Harvard’s interest in student body diversity is compelling, necessary and lawful. 

• Read the brief. 

Harvard files an appellees’ response brief in the First Circuit. 

SFFA files its appellant’s brief in the First Circuit. 

• Read the brief. 

Following the district court’s decision, SFFA immediately files an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  

• Read the appeal.  
• Read the story from The New York Times.

Judge Burroughs finds that Harvard did not intentionally discriminate against Asian American applicants, did not engage in racial balancing, and the university’s race-conscious admissions policy was narrowly tailored and necessary to achieve the benefits of a diverse student body. Judge Burroughs’ opinion repeatedly cites the students and alumni testimony, and conclusively finds racial diversity produces vital benefits at Harvard, and that racial identity is critical for fairly evaluating highly-talented students of all backgrounds. 

• Read the order. 
• Read the press release. 

The national Lawyers’ Committee delivers post-trial closing arguments.  

• Read the closing arguments. 
• View the closing presentation. 
• Read the press release.  

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

• Harvard’s post-trial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.  
• SFFA’s post-trial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.  
• Students’ post-trial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.  
• SFFA’s response to Harvard’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.  
• Harvard’s response to SFFA’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.  
• View the CNN news Report.

A three-week trial is held before Judge Burroughs in Boston’s federal district court. The students presented opening arguments, closing arguments, and offered direct testimony from four witnesses. The students testify about how Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy has led to increased diversity at the university, enriches the educational environment for all students, and better prepares all students to thrive in an increasingly multi-ethnic society. The students are joined by student alumni groups represented by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. 

• Read the students testimony.  
• Read the students opening arguments. 
• Read the press release. 
• Read the story from The Wall Street Journal.
• Read the story from Bloomberg.
• Read the story from The Harvard Crimson.
• View the CNN News report.

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

• Order on cross-motions for summary judgment. 

The students file a motion to participate in trial, which is scheduled for October.  

• Read the motion. 
• SFFA’s response to students’ motion to participate in trial.  
• Students’ reply in support of motion to participate in trial.  

The students submit an amicus brief and declarations in support of Harvard’s motion for summary judgment. The students affirm that ethno-racial diversity produces distinct benefits, which are educational, personal and professional; explain how Harvard’s current affirmative consideration of race complies with the parameters set forth by the Supreme Court- it is individualized, flexibly appreciates all forms of diversity, and does not treat race as a predominant factor; and affirm that Harvard’s vested interest in promoting greater representation of, and diversity within, students of color compel the continued consideration of race. 

• Harvard’s brief in support of summary judgment.  
• SFFA’s brief in support of summary judgment.  
• Students’ brief in support of Harvard’s motion for summary judgment. 
• Students’ declarations in support of Harvard’s motion for summary judgment.  
• Harvard’s Opposition to SFFA’s motion for summary judgment. 
• SFFA’s Opposition to SFFA’s motion for summary judgment.  
• Students’ brief in opposition to SFFA’s motion for summary judgment. 
• Read the press release. 

The students submit a letter to the court, asking the court to discuss the treatment of confidential information. The students ask the court to seal all information that would make the students personally identifiable, until further notice.  

• Read the letter. 

The national Lawyers’ Committee extends the coalition of students it is representing to include Asian American and Pacific Islander students. Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC joins the case as co-counsel. 

• Read the press release. 

The students submit an amicus brief in support of Harvard’s motion to dismiss.

• Read the brief.  

The district court denies the students full intervention, but grants them enhanced “amicus plus” status. They are permitted to submit briefs, participate in oral arguments, submit personal declarations and affidavits, and will be allowed to file a motion to participate in the trial proceedings if the case proceeds to trial.   

• Read the judge’s order. 

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Lawyers’ for Civil Rights and pro bono counsel from Arnold & Porter file a motion to intervene in the case, on behalf of a group of multi-racial and multi-ethnic Harvard students and prospective students. These students identify as Black, Latinx, and Native American. 

• Read the motion to intervene. 

Anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum and his organization, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), files a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston Division against Harvard University’s race-conscious admissions policy. The lawsuit claims the race-conscious admissions policy unlawfully discriminates against Asian American applicants, and violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It also seeks to overturn 40 years of legal precedent. SFFA ultimately looks to ban Harvard and other colleges from considering—or even knowing—the race of its applicants. 

• Read the lawsuit.