The Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments for the second time Wednesday on Fisher v. University of Texas, a case that could ban affirmative action nationwide.
Abigail Noel Fisher, the plaintiff, began the lawsuit in 2008 after she was negatively discriminated against based on her race from admittance in the University of Texas.
Forbes reported that five justices are likely to rule against the school’s racial preferences and could possibly put a nationwide ban on affirmative action — much to the grief of social justice warriors.
Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy are seen as likely to rule against the University of Texas.
Kennedy, while likely to rule against the school, may have reservations about pushing a nationwide ban on affirmative action. In the past, Kennedy has agreed with the concept of affirmative action, even if he’s struck down certain examples of it being used.
The University of Texas currently accepts the top 10 percent of any accredited high school in the state as to guarantee applicants from minority-majority school districts as well as heavily wealthy and white school districts.
Any applicant who isn’t in the top 10 percent are evaluated through a “holistic review” which is the real piece on contention in the case. The Supreme Court nearly struck the “holistic review” down the first time but instead sent it back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal with instructions to apply stricter scrutiny to the details. The Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the school again, Fisher appealed, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case again.
Admission officials at the school use academic grades, test scores, and combine them with “personal achievement.” The average of those scores determine if a student is accepted, making it non-transparent just how much race plays into a factor.
According to Forbes’ Daniel Fisher, the court is likely to rule against UT because their system is “opaque” and school officials can’t say how any student’s race played in their admission, and therefore can’t detail whether the program advances the “educational benefits of diversity” that Justice Kennedy cited in the first hearing of the case.
