This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (Petitioner)
According to Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., according to Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., racial classifications are wrong and should not be used in admissions.
According to Mr. Strawbridge, the university has not committed to race‑neutral alternatives.
According to Strawbridge, descendants of slaves are highly correlated with race, and no college has proposed a preference based on that status.
According to Strawbridge, the district court conflated the educational benefits of diversity with raw representation on campus.
According to Strawbridge, measuring race‑neutral alternatives is difficult because it requires replicating the precise level of diversity achieved today.
According to Mr. Strawbridge, the military argues that race‑neutral alternatives are unavailable, but provides no evidence of such alternatives.
- [1] acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdf, p. 5
- [2] acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdf, p. 42
- [3] acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdf, p. 46
- [4] acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdf, p. 50
- [5] acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdf, p. 65
- [6] acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdf, p. 179
University of North Carolina (Respondent)
According to University of North Carolina, expert evidence indicates that about 1.2 % of the applicant pool is affected by the university’s race‑conscious admissions program.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts announced the case and the start of argument.
Justice Barrett asked to return to a question previously posed by Justice Sotomayor.
Justice Sotomayor asked “Where?” in response to a prior question.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Kavanaugh questioned the definition of “race‑neutral” and the difficulty of measuring it.
Justice Gorsuch asked about narrow tailoring under strict scrutiny.
According to Justice Sotomayor, states banning race consideration have seen dramatic drops in enrollment of Black and Native American students.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts closed the argument and submitted the case.
- [1] acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdf, p. 5
- [2] acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdf, p. 24
- [3] acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdf, p. 26
- [4] acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdf, p. 45
- [5] acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdf, p. 57
- [6] acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdf, p. 90
- [7] acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdf, p. 104
- [8] acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdf, p. 156
- [9] acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdf, p. 183
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the Supreme Court has long recognized that student‑body diversity is a compelling governmental interest that can justify limited consideration of race in admissions.
According to General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, benefits of diversity include increased cross‑racial understanding and positive effects on cognitive development early in college.
According to Justice Sotomayor, states that have banned race‑consideration in admissions have experienced sharp declines in enrollment of underrepresented minority students, especially Black students.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- acc56f79c02ad70f5097-r1-b15032ff7827658d.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.