October Term 2015 · Docket 14-981

Does Texas's holistic admissions plan violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Abigail Fisher challenges the University of Texas at Austin's use of race in admissions. The university defends its holistic review process.

Official caption
Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Rein argued that the university could not estimate the exact impact of race in admissions.

    Mr. Garre stated he would focus on three key issues during his argument.

    Justice Sotomayor pressed the advocate to explain why the plan is worse than Bakke.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether a public university may consider race as one factor in admissions. the side that brought the case argues this practice violates the Constitution. the opposing side argues it serves a compelling state interest.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 9, 2015.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Fisher wants the Court to strike down the university's race-conscious admissions policy.

The university wants the Court to uphold its holistic review process.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Fisher argues that using race in admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The university argues that its plan is narrowly tailored to achieve educational diversity.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked what is wrong with the plan if the need for it is assumed.

Justice Sotomayor asked how the plan differs from the Bakke precedent.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the limits of affirmative action in public education. It determines whether universities can consider race to build diverse student bodies. This affects access to higher education for all applicants.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON