October Term 2012 · Docket 11-345
Does Texas's top-ten-percent admissions plan violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Abigail Fisher challenges the University of Texas admissions policy. She claims the plan discriminates against white applicants. The university defends the policy as constitutional.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
General Verrilli argued the case focuses on what is not at issue. He emphasized the specific context of the admissions process.
Mr. Garre argued the admissions plan is constitutional. He cited two overriding reasons based on Court precedents.
Mr. Rein represented the side that brought the case. He addressed the Court regarding the specific legal claims.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 33-19 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 33-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 29-23 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 29-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 43-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 43-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 21-35 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 21-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 9-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the legality of a state admissions rule. The rule admits students based on high school rank. It also considers race as one factor. The parties dispute whether this practice harms white applicants.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 33-19 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 33-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 29-23 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 29-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 9-11
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 10, 2012.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 25-39
What each side wants
Fisher wants the Court to strike down the admissions plan. She seeks a declaration that the policy is unconstitutional.
The university wants the Court to uphold the admissions plan. It seeks to keep the current policy in place.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 33-19 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 33-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 29-23 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 29-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 9-11
What each side says
Fisher argues the plan causes concrete harm to white applicants. She claims the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause.
The university argues the plan serves a compelling state interest. It claims the policy is narrowly tailored to achieve diversity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 33-19 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 33-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 29-23 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 29-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 9-11
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked how Fisher proves a specific injury. She questioned the measure of damages available.
Justice Ginsburg raised the issue of standing. She noted the Court must address this on its own.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 43-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 43-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 21-35 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 21-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-11
Why it matters
The outcome defines the limits of race-conscious admissions. It shapes how public universities select students. It affects the legal standing of similar state policies.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 33-19 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 33-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 29-23 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 29-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 9-11
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 43-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 43-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 21-35 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 21-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 33-19 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 33-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 29-23 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 29-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 33-19 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 33-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 29-23 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 29-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 9-11
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.