Yesterday, June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court released its decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin where it considered the University’s use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions. In an encouraging decision the Court held, by a 7-1 majority, that “because the Fifth Circuit did not hold the University to the demanding burden of strict scrutiny articulated in Grutter and Regents of Univ. of Cal. V. Bakke, … its decision affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the University was incorrect.” According to the Court “[t]he reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.” The opinion is consistent with the brief filed by the Brandeis Center in support of Abigail Fisher arguing that allowing the University to pursue race-conscious policies would be inconsistent with the Court’s responsibility to enforce constitutional limits on governmental action. The brief, which was drafted by Alan Gura, and filed by the Brandeis Center and the 80-20 National Asian-American Educational Foundation, et al., was recognized by the National Law Journal as the “Brief of the Week.” Historically Jews were one of the most disenfranchised group in college admissions, and the same criterion that was once used to exclude them is now used to exclude Asians. The strategies adopted by the University were developed with the intent of restricting the enrollment of Jewish students and they continue to be used to limit the enrollment of Asian students today. Under the preferential system adopted by the University Asians are disproportionally hurt, as Jewish students once were. Mechanisms to increase a particular racial group’s representation at a school at the expense of another group could also be used to decrease a particular group’s representation, as has been done in the past. Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion agreeing that the Court of Appeals did not apply strict scrutiny to the use of racial discrimination in admissions but explaining that he would overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and “hold that a State’s use of race in higher education admissions decisions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.” According to Thomas “[t]he University’s professed good intentions cannot excuse its outright racial discrimination any more than such intentions justified the now denounced arguments of slaveholders and segregationists.” Notably, Thomas also wrote that “[t]here can be no doubt that the University’s discrimination injures white and Asian applicants who are denied admission because of their race.” Update: edited in response to comments below.