How has U.S. Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action? Here’s a timeline of cases.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings this summer on two cases involving the use of race as a factor in college admissions — including one case in which UNC-Chapel Hill is defending its practices.

When the nation’s highest court issues its rulings in the cases, it will mark the latest decision on affirmative action over the past 40-plus years. Depending on how the court rules, it could overturn decades of precedent.

Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), an anti-affirmative action group, sued both UNC and Harvard University in 2014 over the universities’ admissions practices, which include the consideration of race. The group alleges that the universities’ practices come at the detriment of white and Asian American students.

UNC has defended its practices at various stages of the legal process. The university argues that its practices consider race as one of dozens of factors in the admissions process, and that other alternatives to race would not achieve the university’s goal of creating a diverse student body, which are standards upheld under precedent set out by the Supreme Court in prior affirmative action cases.

What requirements, according to the court’s precedents, must colleges meet when using race in admissions? How have those requirements been narrowed over time? When were each of the precedents issued?

Here’s a chronological look at landmark cases and previous rulings by the Supreme Court on affirmative action in college admissions.

1978: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

This case stemmed from the two-time rejection of Allan Bakke, a white man, by the University of California Davis medical school.

The medical school, in an attempt to address longstanding discrimination in the medical field, reserved a certain number of spots in each upcoming class of students for qualified minority students.

Bakke argued that he was rejected solely on the basis of race, and that such affirmative action practices violated the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke, finding that the use of racial quotas in admissions was a violation of the Civil Rights Act, and thus ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. But the court also ruled that, while racial quotas were not permissible, race could be used as one factor among many criteria considered in admissions decisions.

In issuing its rulings in the Bakke case, the court “managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action,” per Oyez, an online archive and database of Supreme Court cases.

2003: Gratz v. Bollinger

One of two cases the Supreme Court heard in 2003 involving the University of Michigan, Gratz v. Bollinger involved the university’s undergraduate admissions practices.

Starting in 1998, Oyez says, the university’s undergraduate admissions office used a point-based system that automatically assigned 20 points to underrepresented minority applicants. The policy resulted in “virtually every qualified applicant from” those minority groups being admitted to the university.

Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both white students who were denied admission to the university, filed a lawsuit arguing that the university’s admissions practices violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A lower court ruled that the university’s policy amounted to “holding seats,” similar to a quota system, for minority applicants, Oyez says.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court found that the university’s practices were unconstitutional because they did not apply the use of race in a narrowly tailored, individualized way, as court precedent required. The policies “did not provide individual consideration, but rather resulted in the admission of nearly every applicant of ‘underrepresented minority’ status,” per Oyez.

2003: Grutter v. Bollinger

The other University of Michigan-originated case considered by the Supreme Court in 2003, Grutter v. Bollinger involved admissions practices at the university’s law school.

The case centered around Barbara Grutter, a white student who applied to the law school and was denied. The law school used race as a factor in admissions, Oyez says, and justified that practice by saying it served a “compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body.”

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the law school’s use of race was constitutional because it was narrowly tailored — offering a highly individualized review of each applicant, not using race as an automatic plus factor or quota — and served a compelling government interest in ensuring a diverse student body, because of the educational benefits it provides.

In her majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that, 25 years from the decision, the court expected the use of race in admissions would “no longer be necessary to further” the compelling interest — achieving a diverse student body — cited by the university in Grutter.

2013, 2016: Fisher v. UT Austin

The Fisher case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Abigail Fisher, a white student who was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin.

The university since 1997 had used a “top 10 percent” plan for undergraduate admissions, in which the university was required by law to admit all high school seniors who ranked in the top 10% of their high school class. The remainder of each first-year class at the university was selected using race as one factor in the admissions decisions.

Fisher, who did not rank in the top 10% of her high school class, claimed that the use of race by the university in admissions was a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

The Supreme Court first heard the Fisher case in 2012 and issued a ruling in 2013. The ruling sent the case back to a lower appeals court for a different analysis. After more review by that court, the case made it back to the Supreme Court in 2015, with a ruling issued in 2016.

In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Texas’ admissions practices, saying the practices used race in a narrowly tailored way in order to achieve a compelling interest of ensuring a diverse student body. The court also found that the university had attempted to use race-neutral alternatives, but none achieved the same goals and outcomes as using race.

2023: SFFA v. UNC and SFFA v. Harvard

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the cases brought by SFFA against UNC and Harvard in October. The cases both stem from lawsuits filed by SFFA in 2014.

In the UNC case, the court is considering whether the university’s use of race in admissions is permissible, and whether it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

In the Harvard case, the court is considering whether the university’s use of race in admissions violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Decisions in each case are expected to be issued by the court by the end of June, and could have far-reaching impacts — potentially overturning the precedent set in Grutter that has previously been upheld by the court — on university admissions practices nationwide.