How did UNC admissions case get to the U.S. Supreme Court? Here’s a timeline.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue this summer its rulings in two separate, but similar, cases that could have sweeping impacts on the use of race in college admissions practices around the country.

UNC-Chapel Hill is at the center of one of the cases, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, with the university defending its use of race as one of several factors it considers in its “holistic approach to undergraduate admissions.” The other case involves Harvard University.

Both cases stems from separate 2014 lawsuits filed against the universities by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), an anti-affirmative action group led by conservative legal activist Edward Blum.

What has happened in the nine years since the legal battle between UNC and SFFA began? How did the case get to the Supreme Court?

Here’s a timeline of key moments and events in the case.

November 2014: SFFA files lawsuit

On November 17, 2014, SFFA, a group of rejected applicants, prospective students and parents led by Blum, filed a federal lawsuit against UNC, alleging the university uses “racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and procedures in administering the undergraduate admissions program.”

UNC, SFFA alleged, uses race as a “defining feature” of students’ applications, giving under-represented minority students an advantage, while hindering “high-achieving” Asian-American and white applicants. SFFA said in the lawsuit that such practices by the university violate both the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides equal protection under the law, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

SFFA also alleged that UNC could use race-neutral alternatives to achieve the university’s stated diversity goals.

“Students for Fair Admissions argues that this compels the university to end its racial classifications and preferences and adopt some combination of race-neutral policies instead,” a news release from the group said at the time.

In the months leading up to the filing of the lawsuit, SFFA sought plaintiffs for the case through a website, uncnotfair.org, that said rejected applicants to UNC may have been denied admission “because you’re the wrong race,” The News & Observer reported at the time.

UNC has defended its practices since the beginning of the legal battle with SFFA. In a statement following SFFA filing its lawsuit, the university said that it “stands by its current undergraduate admissions policy and process.”

2019: Motions for summary judgment

More than three years after SFFA filed its lawsuit against UNC, in January 2019, both parties filed motions for summary judgment, asking a federal judge to dismiss the case without going to trial.

The university argued SFFA hadn’t established sufficient grounds for their lawsuit to continue, The N&O reported at the time.

Federal judge Loretta Biggs denied both parties’ motions in September 2019, ordering the case go to trial in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in Winston-Salem.

November 2020: Federal bench trial

The federal trial, heard by Biggs, began on Nov. 9, 2020, and lasted eight days.

During the trial, Biggs heard support and opposition to UNC’s admissions practices from lawyers, students, alumni, professors, researchers and admissions directors, The N&O reported.

The central question of the case, The N&O reported, was whether UNC’s admissions policies and practices meet strict scrutiny for why and how they use race as a factor in admissions.

SFFA relied heavily on statistical models from Peter Arcidiacono, a Duke University economics professor, which SFFA lawyers said provided statistical evidence that UNC’s admission process uses race as a dominant, determining factor, The N&O reported. SFFA also argued that the university had failed to seriously consider race-neutral alternatives to achieve the university’s stated diversity goals.

SFFA did not bring any students to testify at the trial.

UNC defended its practices during the trial, as it had since SFFA filed its lawsuit in 2014, arguing that race is used as an important, but not dominant, factor among dozens considered during the university’s holistic admissions process. The university also argued that it had researched alternatives to race, but had not found one that accomplished the same diversity of students.

Several UNC alumni, represented by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law as an intervenor in the case, testified at the trial about the benefits they saw in having diverse classmates during their time at the university.

One of the university’s lawyers said during the trial that UNC was “doing the right thing, for the right reasons, in the right way.”

October 2021: Trial court rules in favor of UNC

Nearly a year after the federal trial ended, in October 2021, Biggs ruled in favor of UNC, saying that the university does not discriminate against white or Asian American applicants and could keep using race as a factor in its admissions process.

The university uses a “highly individualized, holistic admissions program” when selecting applicants to admit, and race is used as one of dozens of factors in the process, Biggs said in her ruling. She also said the university had seriously considered race-neutral alternatives, and its policies withstood the strict scrutiny standards set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in prior cases.

“While no student can or should be admitted to this University, or any other, based solely on race, because race is so interwoven in every aspect of the lived experience of minority students, to ignore it, reduce its importance and measure it only by statistical models as SFFA has done, misses important context to include obscuring racial barriers and obstacles that have been faced, overcome and are yet to be overcome,” Biggs said.

At the time of the ruling, Blum of SFFA said the group would appeal the decision to 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.

November 2021: SFFA petitions higher courts

SFFA filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 11, 2021, asking the court to hear the UNC case alongside the group’s case against Harvard University.

SFFA’s case against Harvard had previously been ruled on by a federal district court and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, with both courts upholding Harvard’s admissions policies.

SFFA petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the Harvard case in February 2021, and in November asked the court to take up the UNC case alongside it, calling the UNC case a “companion” to the Harvard one.

Lawyers for UNC opposed SFFA’s petition in a brief filed in December 2021, saying the 4th Circuit would be the “proper forum” to appeal the district court’s decision.

January 2022: Supreme Court agrees to hear case

The Supreme Court on Jan. 24, 2022, granted SFFA’s petitions to hear the Harvard and UNC cases, consolidating the cases in the process.

“We look forward to defending the University’s holistic admissions process before the U.S. Supreme Court,” UNC Associate Vice Chancellor for University Communications Beth Keith said in a statement at the time. “As the trial court held, our process is consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent and allows for an evaluation of each student in a deliberate and thoughtful way.”

The cases were originally allotted a total of one hour for oral arguments, which were expected to be heard in the court’s term beginning in October 2022.

July 2022: Supreme Court separates UNC, Harvard cases

The Supreme Court separated the UNC and Harvard cases on July 22, 2022, following Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joining the court in June.

Jackson, who has served on the Harvard Board of Overseers, recused herself from the Harvard case but continued to participate in the UNC case.

August 2022: Amicus briefs

Leading up to the Supreme Court hearing the case, several individuals and groups filed amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs in support of both groups.

Briefs filed in support of UNC came from military leaders, major businesses and current and former government leaders, including North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and some of his predecessors.

October 2022: Oral arguments

Originally set for 90 minutes of oral arguments divided evenly among both sides, the proceedings in the UNC case on Oct. 31 lasted almost three hours, with the nine Supreme Court justices asking several questions.

SFFA was represented by Patrick Strawbridge, a Boston attorney, who called the existing Supreme Court precedent on affirmative action policies “grievously wrong.”

UNC was represented by North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park. A group of students from the university was represented by David Hinojosa of the Lawyers’ Committee on Civil Rights Under Law. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar also argued on behalf of the federal government in support of UNC and its policies. The three attorneys separately filled more than 90 minutes of argument.

In a virtual press conference following the arguments, UNC Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz said the university was “proud” of its holistic admissions process and the diversity it brings to campus.

Summer 2023: Decision expected

Decisions and opinions in cases heard by the Supreme Court in its October 2022 term, including SFFA v. UNC, are expected to be issued by the end of June, when the court recesses.