Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Affirmative Action Again Under Fire in Admissions

By Aleks Ostojic Rushing & Mary Kate Mullen on September 18, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On May 16, 2019, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), an anti-affirmative action group, filed yet another lawsuit against the University of Texas at Austin (the University). This is the third such suit SFFA has filed against the University. The new lawsuit alleges the University violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the Texas Constitution by considering race in the admissions process. A similar lawsuit between the parties was dismissed in April due to a lack of standing.

Top Ten Percent Plan

Texas passed a law in 1997 known as the “Top Ten Percent Plan” (TTPP) which requires public state universities to admit all applicants from Texas who rank in the top 10% of their high school graduating class. This law was modified in 2009 for the University to allow for automatic admission of 75% of the incoming freshman class, with the remaining 25% to be chosen based on admissions criteria. Currently, students in the top 6% of their graduating class are eligible for automatic admission at the University in this 75% group.

SFFA New Lawsuit Against University of Texas at Austin

SFFA’s newest lawsuit alleges the University’s consideration of race while filling the remaining 25% of spots at the University is discrimination, particularly against white and Asian applicants. Under the Texas Constitution, in order to use race as a factor in admissions, the University must have a policy that is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. SFFA claims that “student body diversity” is not a compelling interest of the University and that categorizing students into demographic groups is crude, inaccurate, and overly simplistic. Additionally, SFFA alleges racial preferences actually harm their intended beneficiaries. In support of this argument, SFFA’s petition cites United States Supreme Court Justice Thomas’s dissent  in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 241 (1995) where Justice Thomas declares that racial preferences “stamp minorities with a badge of inferiority and may cause them to develop dependencies or to adopt an attitude that they are ‘entitled’ to preferences.” SFFA requests a permanent injunction to prohibit the University from considering race as a factor in the admissions process.

Fisher I and II

SFFA’s challenges to affirmative action hit the spotlight with the high-profile lawsuit, Fisher v. University of Texas, which reached the Supreme Court in 2016. In a 4-3 decision, the Court narrowly ruled in favor of the University and upheld the consideration of race in a holistic review of an applicant’s file. The Court stated their affirmance of the University’s admissions policy did not mean the University could rely on that same policy in the future without refining it and advised the University that it was obligated “to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies.”

Fisher challenged the use of race in admissions under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.  In SFFA’s lawsuit filed this year, SFFA takes a new approach by challenging the same practices under the Equal Rights Amendment of the Texas Constitution.

The lawsuit against the University is one of several pending across the country. SFFA has filed similar lawsuits challenging affirmative action at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A ruling is expected in the Harvard case this summer. Regardless of the ruling, an appeal is expected in the Harvard case.

Affirmative Action Today

The Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that states have the right to prohibit the use of race preferences in school admissions. As a result, eight states now have laws prohibiting race-based affirmative action at all public universities. These states include Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Washington. It is expected that more states may follow.

The U.S. Department of Education under the Trump Administration has also supported a rollback of affirmative action and race-conscious admissions policies. In 2018, the U.S. Department of Education rescinded the Obama Administration’s guidelines that provided instructions for considering race in elementary, secondary, and postsecondary institutions.  Later, in 2019, the Trump Administration reached an agreement with Texas Tech University’s medical school where Texas Tech University agreed to stop considering race in its admissions process.

What This Means for Educational Institutions

It is likely that one or more of these cases could reach the Supreme Court in the next couple of terms, leaving the validity of race-conscious admissions in flux. This prospect is a cue to educational institutions to consider reviewing their policies regarding affirmative action and race-conscious decision making in admissions to ensure they comply with relevant federal and state laws.

Thank you to Husch Blackwell’s summer associate Jackie Coffman for contributing to this blog post.

Photo of Aleks Ostojic Rushing Aleks Ostojic Rushing

As a licensed teacher, Aleks’ passion for education runs deep and is at the core of her work with clients. She knows that every client and every student requires a unique approach to optimize success. Aleks counsels K-12 and higher education clients on…

As a licensed teacher, Aleks’ passion for education runs deep and is at the core of her work with clients. She knows that every client and every student requires a unique approach to optimize success. Aleks counsels K-12 and higher education clients on investigations, litigation and compliance matters arising from a wide range of civil rights and educational funding issues. These include Title IX, Title IV, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family Educational Records Privacy Act (FERPA).

Read more about Aleks Ostojic RushingEmailAleks Ostojic's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Mary Kate Mullen Mary Kate Mullen

Mary Kate represents clients in a wide variety of industries, including healthcare, education, manufacturing, and real estate. She has experience in all stages of litigation, including fact investigations, initial pleadings, discovery, depositions, and trial strategy. Mary Kate focuses her practice on the defense…

Mary Kate represents clients in a wide variety of industries, including healthcare, education, manufacturing, and real estate. She has experience in all stages of litigation, including fact investigations, initial pleadings, discovery, depositions, and trial strategy. Mary Kate focuses her practice on the defense of medical malpractice claims and the defense of commercial claims, including contract disputes and business torts on behalf of pharmacies and pharmacy benefit managers.

Read more about Mary Kate MullenEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Government and Public Policy
  • Blog:
    K-12 Legal Insights
  • Organization:
    Husch Blackwell LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo