Decisão Cotas Usa

Official - Subject to Final Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x ABIGAIL NOEL FISHER, Petitioner v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, ET AL. : : : : : No. 11-345
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x Washington, D.C. Wednesday, October 10, 2012
The above-entitled matter came on for oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 11:04 a.m. APPEARANCES: BERT W. REIN, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf of Petitioner. GREGORY G. GARRE, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf of Respondents. DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR., ESQ., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Respondents.
Alderson Reporting Company
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORAL ARGUMENT OF BERT W. REIN, ESQ.
C O N T E N T S
PAGE
On behalf of the Petitioner ORAL ARGUMENT OF GREGORY G. GARRE, ESQ. On behalf of the Respondents ORAL ARGUMENT OF DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR., ESQ For United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF BERT W. REIN, ESQ. On behalf of the Petitioner
31
59
72
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
P R O C E E D I N G S (11:04 a.m.) MR. REIN: please the Court -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, I get to say Mr. Chief Justice, and may it
that this is Case Number 11-345, Fisher against the University of Texas at Austin. And you get to say --
ORAL ARGUMENT OF BERT W. REIN ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER MR. REIN: Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. --
General Suter trained me too well. Mr. Chief Justice, and members of the Court, and may it please the Court: The central issue here is whether the University of Texas at Austin can carry its burden approving that its use of race as an admissions-plus factor in the consequent denial of equal treatment, which is the central mandate of the Equal Protection Clause, to Abigail Fisher met the two tests of strict scrutiny which are applicable. First -JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Rein, before we get
to that, because the Court is supposed to raise it on its own, the question of -- of standing. The injury --
if the injury is rejection by the University of Texas, 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and the answer is, no matter what, this person would not have been accepted, then how is the injury caused by the affirmative action program? MR. REIN: Well, Justice Ginsburg, the first
injury that was before the Court was the use of a system which denied equal treatment. It was a Constitutional
injury, and part of the damage claim was premised directly on the Constitutional issue. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: How do you get past
Texas v. Lesage with that injury -MR. REIN: Lesage --- which says that mere
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:
use of race is not cognizable injury sufficient for standing. MR. REIN: Lesage was litigated on its
merits, and the question was whether Lesage could carry his case when -- on summary judgment, when it was apparent that his complaint, which was that he was denied access to the graduate program at the University of Texas, was not sustainable. As I said -- and there are several factors in this case that are quite different. First, there is
a Constitutional injury as such, and the Court has recognized it. Second, the fact premise, she could not have 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
been allowed in under any circumstance, was never tested below, wasn't raised below. in -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: side? She's graduated. MR. REIN: Correct. She disclaimed the Can I go to another It comes up in a footnote
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:
desire, after her application, to go to the school at all. She was permitted to apply for the summer program
and get in automatically, and she didn't, correct? MR. REIN: Your Honor. No, that's not correct,
She -- she was not automatically admitted.
She was considered for the summer program and rejected. You are talking about the CAP program, where she could have attended a different university in the Texas system, and had she been able to achieve -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: MR. REIN: But she's graduated.
She has graduated. Injunctive relief, she's
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: not going to get.
So what measure of damages will she
get or will she be entitled to? MR. REIN: Well, that issue, of course, is
bifurcated, and we've reserved the ability to -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: injury. So what's the injury -5
But you have to claim an
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. REIN:
Well --- that you're claiming
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:
that would sustain a claim of damages? MR. REIN: The -- the denial of her right to
equal treatment is a Constitutional injury in and of itself, and we had claimed certain damages on that. We -- we started the case before it was clear whether she would or wouldn't be admitted. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: You still haven't
answered how Lesage gets away from that -MR. REIN: Well, if there's --- but if there's a --
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: give me another -MR. REIN:
Well, I think --- damages question.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: MR. REIN:
On the -- if we then, on remand,
were to assert damages contingent upon the fact that she should have been admitted to UT and was not admitted, we would then have to prove that, but for the use of race, she would be admitted. That's the thrust of Lesage.
Whether we can prove it or can't prove it is something you can't tell on this record. asserted. It's merely
And I would point out that Texas said below,
there was no way to determine that issue without -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: 6 What damages --
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
JUSTICE SCALIA:
We've had cases involving
alleged discrimination in state -- state contracting. And we haven't required the person who was discriminated against because of race to prove that he would have gotten the contract otherwise, have we? MR. REIN: No, sir. It's -- it's been enough
JUSTICE SCALIA:
that there was a denial of equal protection. MR. REIN: our first premise. was raised in Bakke. That is our correct, and that is
And I would say that the same issue And in Bakke, the contention was
he couldn't have gotten into the medical school; therefore, he has no case. The Court said, in footnote
14 to Justice Powell's opinion, that's a matter of merits; it is not a matter of standing. I think in -- in Parents Involved, the same type of contention was made with respect to the Louisville class plaintiffs, whose son had been admitted to the school of his choice, and the Court said damages are enough to sustain standing. There is a live damages
claim here, and I don't think there is a question of standing. JUSTICE SCALIA: Her claim is not
necessarily that she would have been -- would have been admitted, but that she was denied a fair chance in the 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
admission lottery.
Just as when a person is denied
participation in the contracting lottery, he has suffered an injury. MR. REIN: that. JUSTICE BREYER: If you are going to -- to Yes, Justice Scalia, I agree with
the merits, I want to know whether you want us to -- or are asking us to overrule Grutter. Grutter said it And I know
would be good law for at least 25 years.
that time flies, but I think only nine of those years have passed. (Laughter.) JUSTICE BREYER: And so, are you? And, if
so, why overrule a case into which so much thought and effort went and so many people across the country have depended on? MR. REIN: Justice Breyer, we have said,
very carefully, we were not trying to change the Court's disposition of the issue in Grutter. Could there be a
legitimate -- a compelling interest in -- in moving -in using race to establish a diverse class. What -- the problem that we've encountered throughout the case is there are varying understandings, not of the legitimacy of the interest, but how you get there; is it necessary to use race to achieve that 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
interest; what does a critical mass -JUSTICE BREYER: So your question is
whether -- your point is does your case satisfy Grutter? Is that what you're arguing? MR. REIN: yes. JUSTICE BREYER: Well, how do you want to I'm We litigated it on that basis,
argue it right now in the next ten minutes?
interested because I have a very short time to get my question out, and I need to know how you are going to argue it. MR. REIN: Well, Justice Breyer, our
argument is we can satisfy Grutter if it's properly read. What we've seen -JUSTICE GINSBURG: May I ask you on that
specifically, let's take away the 10 percent solution. Suppose the only plan were the one that is before the Court now, no 10 percent. This is the exclusive way
that the University is attempting to increase minority enrollment. Then, if we had no 10 percent solution, under Grutter, would this plan be acceptable? MR. REIN: Well, I think that there would be
flaws under Grutter, even if you assumed away something that can't be assumed away because it is a matter of 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Texas law, that is, there is a top 10 percent program, and that -JUSTICE GINSBURG: question is can you have both? Well, then the -- the But it seems to me that
this program is certainly no more aggressive than the one in -- in Grutter; it's more -- in fact, more modest. MR. REIN: and let me explain why. In order to satisfy Grutter, you first have to say that you are not just using race gratuitously, but it is in the interest of producing a critical mass of otherwise underrepresented students. And so to -- to Well, I don't agree with that,
be within Grutter framework, the first question is, absent the use of race, would we be generating a critical mass? To answer that question, you start -- you've got to examine in context the so-called soft factors that are in Grutter -- you know, are -- is there an isolation on campus? they cannot speak out? JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: The one social studies Do members of minority feel that
that this University did said that minority students, overwhelmingly, even with the numbers they have now, are feeling isolated. under your test? 10
So what do -- why isn't that even
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Grutter? day. survey.
We can go back to whether substantial evidence is adequate, is necessary, or not. their test fail? MR. REIN: Well, the survey was -- a random They Why does
It's not reported in any systematic way.
evidently interviewed students. classroom isolation.
And it was all about
It wasn't about -Was it -- was it done
JUSTICE SCALIA:
before or after they announced the decision to reinstitute racial quotas? MR. REIN: It was done after
President Faulkner had made the declaration they were going to do it. It was done before -Which came almost
JUSTICE SCALIA:
immediately after our decision on Grutter. MR. REIN: On the -- I believe, on the same
JUSTICE SCALIA:
And by the way, do you
think that Grutter -- this goes to Justice Breyer's question -- do you think that Grutter held that there is no more affirmative action in higher education after 2028? MR. REIN: No, I don't. Was that the holding of
JUSTICE SCALIA: 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. REIN:
That was not -- that was -I agree it might, but I
JUSTICE BREYER:
want to get to the question, see, what I'm trying to pinpoint, because we have such a limited time, and to me, the one thing I want to pinpoint, since you're arguing on that this satisfies Grutter, if properly understood, as you say that. two-court rule. And two courts have found, it seems to me, that here, there is a certain -- there is no quota. is individualized. It is time limited. It In looking up, we have a
It was adopted Each
after the consideration of race-neutral means.
applicant receives individual consideration, and race did not become the predominant factor. So I take those as a given. And then I want
to know what precisely it is that Grutter required in your opinion that makes this different from Grutter, in that it was not satisfied here? courts say are the same. MR. REIN: The ones I listed, two
So maybe there's some others.
I'm not sure we agree with those
courts in their method of analysis. JUSTICE BREYER: Okay. But we have a rule
that if two courts say it, we're very reluctant, on something connected with facts, to overturn it, so -- so that's why I mention that. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it? fact.
MR. REIN:
And -- particularly in the case
of considering alternatives that have worked about as well, I think that's a legal question this Court is free to act on. JUSTICE SCALIA: Okay. There are facts, and
there are facts, aren't there? MR. REIN: So if I might try to answer your
question, there was no effort in this case to establish a -- even a working target for critical mass. simply ignored it. They
They just used words, and they said, So they never answered the Absent the use
we've got to do more.
predicate question, which Grutter asks: of race, can we generate a critical mass?
So -- I mean, that's -- that's a flaw we think is in Grutter. We think it's necessary for this Now, whether that --
Court to restate that principle. JUSTICE SCALIA:
That -- that's a normal
fact that we accede to two-court holdings on, whether there is -- is or is not a critical mass? MR. REIN: No. I -It's a weird kind of a
JUSTICE SCALIA:
MR. REIN:
And I'm -- I'm not saying -It's an estimation, isn't
JUSTICE SCALIA: A judgment? 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 correct.
MR. REIN:
Well, Justice Scalia, that is
And in addition, the courts didn't find
whether a critical mass -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: what a critical mass was? So could you tell me
I'm looking at the number of Pre-Grutter,
blacks in the University of Texas system.
when the state was indisputably still segregating, it was 4 percent. it's 6 percent. Today, under the post-Grutter system, The 2 percent increase is enough for
you, even though the state population is at 12 percent? Somehow, they've reached a critical mass with just the 2 percent increase? MR. REIN: Well, we don't believe that
demographics are the key to underrepresentation of critical mass. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: No -- putting aside -- I
don't -- I'm not going to quarrel with you that, if demographics alone were being used, I would be somewhat concerned. But you can't seriously suggest that
demographics aren't a factor to be looked at in combination with how isolated or not isolated your student body is actually reporting itself to feel? MR. REIN: Well, I think, if you start to
split out subgroups of minorities, you mistake, I think -- what I think is the proper thrust of Grutter, 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
or at least ought to be. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: It might be -- it might
be insulting to some to be thrown into a pot. JUSTICE SCALIA: seriously suggest that? Why -- why don't you
Why don't you seriously suggest
that demographic -- that the demographic makeup of the state has nothing to do with whether somebody feels isolated, that if you're in a state that is only 1 percent black that doesn't mean that you're not isolated, so long as there's 1 percent in the class? MR. REIN: Certainly -- racial balance -I wish you would take that
JUSTICE SCALIA:
position because it seems, to me, right. MR. REIN: Well, Justice Scalia, racial And we are
balancing is not a permissible interest.
constantly -- this Court has constantly held not a permissible interest. certainly agree with. Trying to respond to Justice Sotomayor and -- and in the framework of Grutter, what you're looking at is, do you -- does this person, member of a so-called underrepresented minority -- it's a concept we don't necessarily accept, but it's Texas' concept -- are they isolated? Are they unable to speak out? And that is something we
And I think we've always said, if you have a 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
very large number, as Texas did in 2004, when they ostensibly made the decision to reinstitute race, they had a 21 percent admission percentage of what they called the underrepresented minorities. They also had about an 18 percent admission ratio of Asian Americans. So on campus, you're talking
about -- about 40 percent of the class being minorities. JUSTICE BREYER: Now, but the test is -- the
test is, in your opinion -- I have to write this in the opinion, you say -- the proper test of critical mass is, is the minority isolated, unable to speak out. the test. That's
And that wasn't in Grutter or was in Grutter?
And in your opinion, it was in Grutter? MR. REIN: Grutter -JUSTICE BREYER: Isolated. All right. And Yes. It said expressly in
the reason it was satisfied there and not here is? MR. REIN: In Grutter, the Court assumed
that the very small number of admissions -- minority admissions, looked at as the whole -- and it was looked at as a whole, only as a whole in Grutter -- would have yielded about 3 or 4 percent minority admission in a class of 350, which means about 12 to 15 students -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So what are you telling At what point does
us is the standard of critical mass? 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
a district court or a university know that it doesn't have to do any more to equalize the desegregation that has happened in that particular state over decades, that it's now going to be stuck at a fixed number and it has to change its rules. MR. REIN: establish the number. What's that fixed number? We -- it's not our burden to It was the burden of the
University of Texas to determine whether -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: told the district court. Well, they told -- they
They took a study of students.
They analyzed the composition of their classes, and they determined in their educational judgment that greater diversity, just as we said in Grutter, is a goal of their educational program and one that includes diversifying classes. So what more proof do you require? MR. REIN: Well, if you are allowed to state
all the grounds that need to be proved, you will always prove them, in all fairness, Justice Sotomayor. The question is, they have -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, but given it was I
in the evidence, what more do you think they needed? think I hear all you saying in your brief is the number's fixed now, they got enough, no more is necessary. 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is there. saying?
MR. REIN:
What we're saying in the brief
was they were generating, in fact, a very substantial number of minority presence on campus. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: MR. REIN: And -That's what you're That's enough now.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:
MR. REIN:
No.
And that immediately thrust
upon them the responsibility, if they wanted to -- you know, essentially move away from equal treatment, they had to establish, we have a purpose, we are trying to generate a critical mass of minorities that otherwise could not be achieved. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Tell me -- all right.
Tell me what about their use of race did not fit the narrow tailoring -- not the necessity prong as you've defined it, but the narrow tailoring that Grutter required? How is race used by them in a way that
violated the terms of Grutter? MR. REIN: And for this purpose -Assuming that the need
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:
I know you're challenging the need. MR. REIN: Well, put -- put aside whether
this was necessary and whether it was an appropriate last resort in -- in a quest for diversity and critical 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
mass because Grutter's not without limits.
But I'll put
that aside, and let me come directly to your question. First of all, if you think about narrow tailoring, you can't tailor to the unknown. If you have
no range of evaluation, if you have no understanding of what critical mass means, you can't tailor to it. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: quota for critical mass? MR. REIN: No. There's -- there's a huge So you have to set a
difference, and it's an important one that is not well put out by the University of Texas. Having a range, a
view as to what would be an appropriate level of comfort, critical mass, as defined in Grutter, allows you to evaluate where you are -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So we won't call it a
quota, we'll call it a goal, something Grutter said you shouldn't have. MR. REIN: Well, Justice Sotomayor, I think
it's very important to distinguish between the operative use of that range. In other words, that's where we are,
and we're going to use race until we get there, every year, in consideration of each application, which was a problem -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Boy, it sounds awfully
like a quota to me, that Grutter said you should not be 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
doing, that you shouldn't be setting goals, that you shouldn't be setting quotas. You should be setting an
individualized assessment of the applicants. Tell me how this system doesn't do that. MR. REIN: This system doesn't -- I mean,
it's not narrowly tailored because it doesn't fit. There are certain forms of Grutter that it follows. It -JUSTICE ALITO: Well, Mr. Rein, do you
understand what the University of Texas thinks is the definition of a critical mass? MR. REIN: Because I don't.
I -- well, it simply reiterated They have no definition. They
the language of Grutter. can't fit --
JUSTICE GINSBURG:
Mr. -- Mr. Rein, it seems
to me that, in your talking about critical mass, you are relying entirely on the 10 percent is enough. They
don't -- they got minorities through the 10 percent, so they don't need any more. And I tried to get you This
rigidly to focus on -- forget the 10 percent plan. is the entire plan. MR. REIN:
Well, let me tell you that, if
you look outside the top 10, at the so-called AI/PAI admits only -- forget the top 10 for a minute, they were generating approximately 15 percent minority admissions 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
outside the top 10, which is in -- above what the target was in Grutter. So this is not Grutter on its facts. This is a -Because of the
It's vastly different.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: 10 percent. MR. REIN:
No, it was -- I'm talking about 15 percent of This
only the non-top 10 percent admissions.
those were so-called underrepresented minorities. is without the top 10.
Now, the top 10 is also a major
generator of admissions for underrepresented minorities. JUSTICE KENNEDY: And this was -- and this
was before the adoption of the plan. MR. REIN: numbers -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Now, I'm confused. Well, I'm sorry. That is correct. Those are the
I thought the 15 percent figure was
the one that was arrived at with the 10 percent plan. MR. REIN: it's much higher. No. With the 10 percent plan,
In 2004, it was 21 percent for just
Hispanics and African Americans, and these are the categories they used. 38 percent. But I'm isolating -- in response to Justice Ginsburg, I'm isolating to the non-top 10 admissions. Those are over 15 percent in that year, and they average 21
If you add in Asians, it was over
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
very close to that over time. So the -- the total generation of minority presence is a combination of the two in fact, but the AI/PAI system -- which was adopted in response to Hopwood, it was -- as Texas says, it was the first thing they tried to accommodate to their loss of the ability to use race directly, which came up in Hopwood. So that was their first response, to look at a more balanced admission program between Academic Index and Personal Achievement Index. which just excludes minorities. JUSTICE KENNEDY: Could you comment on So it is not a system
this -- and then I hope we can get back to Justice Alito's question. You argue that the University's race-conscious admission plan is not necessary to achieve a diverse student body because it admits so few people -- so few minorities. that, reading the brief. then what's the problem? MR. REIN: Well, it's a question -Then -- let's assume -And I had trouble with
I said, well, if it's so few,
JUSTICE KENNEDY: MR. REIN:
Excuse me, Justice Kennedy. -- that it resulted in the Then you'd come back and
JUSTICE KENNEDY: admission of many minorities. 22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
say, oh, well, this is -- this shows that we -- we were probably wrongly excluded. MR. REIN: I --
Well -I see an inconsistency
JUSTICE KENNEDY: here. MR. REIN: Well --
JUSTICE KENNEDY:
Is it -- are you saying
that you shouldn't impose this hurt or this injury, generally, for so little benefit; is -- is that the point? MR. REIN: Well, yes, that's part of it.
The second is the question of reasonably available alternatives. If we take Texas at its word, and it says
they are satisfied, they are happy going on with the way they apply race today, we tried to measure, well, what difference is it making? And could you achieve the same
thing with a reasonably available race-neutral alternative? That's a question that was asked in Grutter. They were supposed to analyze that. it. But it -JUSTICE GINSBURG: But is the -- the They didn't look at
race-neutral alternative is the 10 percent plan? MR. REIN: The race-neutral alternative
includes an extension of the 10 percent plan because 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it's a major generator of minority admissions. right now, that ranges at 30 percent. JUSTICE GINSBURG:
And
But you say, and that's But is it
okay because it's -- it's race-neutral. really?
I mean, the -- the only reason that they
instituted the 10 percent plan was to increase minority enrollment. MR. REIN: Well, we say -And it -- and that -- the
JUSTICE GINSBURG:
only way it works is if you have heavily separated schools. And worse than that, I mean, if you -- if you
want to go to the University of Texas under the 10 percent plan, you go to the low-performing school, you don't take challenging courses, because that's how you'll get into the 10 percent. So maybe the University is concerned that that is an inadequate way to deal with it. MR. REIN: But, Justice Ginsburg, let -- let There
me say that -- that a lot of that is speculative. is nothing in the record to support it.
We don't know.
They've never surveyed the top 10 admits, the minority admits, to see, well, did you -JUSTICE SCALIA: Excuse me. The 10 percent It's not their
plan is not imposed by the University. option -24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. REIN:
Correct. -- to say this -- this is
JUSTICE SCALIA:
not good for education because people will take easy courses. It's imposed by state law, isn't it? MR. REIN: Correct. Anybody who is in the top
JUSTICE SCALIA:
10 percent of any school in the state gets into the University of Texas. MR. REIN: Yes. And even the Fifth Circuit
said you can't disregard its consequences because it's a matter of law. I'm simply saying they could choose to
extend it beyond where it is because it's capped today at 75 percent. But that's not the only option. the only alternative. That's not
And -- and certainly, one simple
alternative is they could look at the yield, that is, what percentage of the admitted minorities are they actually encouraging and -- and enrolling. JUSTICE BREYER: Or they could -- this is I want to get you And
what is underlying my thing here. directly to answer it.
I did look up the figures.
before Hopwood and the 10 percent plan, it looked on the African American side, that it averaged about 5 -5 percent per year, really, pretty steadily. Then after Hopwood and 10 percent, it went 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
down a little bit, not a lot, but it went down to about 3 and a half percent -- 4 percent, maybe. And then they
introduced Grutter, and it's back up to 5 percent. MR. REIN: No -Okay. Now, is that a lot?
JUSTICE BREYER: Is that a little?
There are several thousand admissions
officers in the United States, several thousand universities, and what is it we're going to say here that wasn't already said in Grutter, that isn't going to take hundreds or thousands of these people and have Federal judges dictating the policy of admission of all these universities? certainty? MR. REIN: But, Justice -I saw what happened, you You see why I'm looking for some
JUSTICE BREYER: saw the numbers. Sorry. Go ahead.
MR. REIN: answer your question. time.
Justice Breyer, just -- I will I'd like to reserve a little
JUSTICE BREYER:
You can answer it later, if
you want, or not answer it at all, if you don't. (Laughter.) MR. REIN: answer your question. 26
No, I am perfectly happy to -- to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
I think that the increase in African American admissions that you're looking at was pre-Grutter. It -- it was generated before 2004. JUSTICE BREYER: MR. REIN: Uh-huh.
So I just want to make clear the
record doesn't depend -- they don't depend on race to do it. It's minimal change with the use of race. And
that's why we say there is an alternative, which would serve it about as well in increasing yield or, indeed, in reweighting the -- the PAI, which is a critical element here, so that you put more emphasis on the socioeconomic factors and less emphasis on the essays, which are an academic measure within the PAI. So there are lots that they could do -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So now, we're going to
tell the universities how to run and how to weigh qualifications, too? MR. REIN: tell them how to do it. It's not the job of the Court to It's their job to examine the
alternatives available to them and see if they couldn't achieve the same thing. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Could you tell me,
again, how race and their use of race overwhelms those other factors in their system as it's created? MR. REIN: I -- the question is not whether 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it overwhelms them.
They're --
but they -- they say --
they admit, it is effective.
There are admissions that
would not have taken place, but for; somebody else would have had that place, but for the use of race. And I think, Justice Kennedy, just to answer your question fully, you have to analyze race-neutral alternatives. And if you look at Parents Involved, The -- the
that -- that was the critical question.
outcomes were so small, that there were readily available alternatives. JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, perhaps you could
summarize by saying -- by telling us, from your point of view, this plan fails strict scrutiny on one or two or both levels, A, because the objective is inappropriate or ill-defined, and, B, because of the implementation is defective. Which or both of those are you arguing? MR. REIN: continue to argue both. We have argued both, and we It is not a necessary -And in what respect does
JUSTICE KENNEDY:
this plan fail strict scrutiny under either of those -under both of those categories? MR. REIN: Okay. Under the category -- the
first category, was it a necessary means of pursuing a compelling interest, we don't believe they've shown any necessity for doing what they were doing. 28
And
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
certainly, it -- race should have been a last resort. It was a first resort. prong of it. respect. If you go to narrow tailoring, what we are saying is they didn't consider alternatives, and their treatment of, as we have pointed out, Asian Americans and Hispanics makes a -- an incomprehensible distinction. They say, we don't worry about Asians, That's, in a nutshell, that
And in order -- and they failed in every
there are a lot of Asians, it's a demographic measure, which is a forbidden measure. They are in excess of their share of the Texas population. But if you are trying to find
individual comfort levels, if you are breaking it down between African Americans and -- and Hispanics, the -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel, you are the one
who, in your brief, has assumed that they are valuing different races differently. But Asian numbers have
gone up, under however they have structured this PAI. And as I understand their position, race is balanced against other issues like socioeconomics, the strength of the classes people took. It's never a standalone.
So even a white student, I presume, who goes to an -- an entirely black or an entirely Latino school, who becomes class president, would get some points 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
because he has or she has proven that they foster or can deal in a diverse environment. That's how I understood
their plan, that it's not just giving you a plus because of race. It's combining that with other factors. MR. REIN: There is a plus because of race. And might
There are many other factors in the decision.
I say that this -- the white student president of the class in an ethnically different school is a measure of leadership. Leadership is an independent factor in the PAI. It isn't -- he is not getting that point because
he is -- because of his race; he's getting that point because of his leadership. could work for anybody. So race is an independent add-on. It -- it That race-neutral criteria
is something they can use to boost the PAI score, the PAS element in any way they like, because they say they contextualize it. And we say it's not necessary, it's
not narrowly tailored, it ignores available alternatives, it treats -- gives disparate treatment to Asian Americans because they are minorities as well. And to the extent it depends on the classroom factor, there is simply no way to relate or fit what they are doing to the solution of the problem which they used as a major foundation of their proposal, 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
which is the nondiverse classroom.
That -- certainly,
there is just no correspondence there. I see my time is up, Mr. Chief Justice. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We will afford you
rebuttal time, since our questions have prevented you from reserving it. MR. REIN: Thank you. Mr. Garre.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:
ORAL ARGUMENT OF GREGORY G. GARRE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS MR. GARRE: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice,
and may it please the Court: For two overriding reasons, the -- the admissions plan before you is Constitutional under this Court's precedents. First, it is indistinguishable in
terms of how it operates in taking race into account as only one modest factor among many for the individualized considerations of applicants in their totality from plans that this Court has upheld in Grutter and plans that this Court approved in Bakke and the Harvard plan -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I -- I put that in the
narrow tailoring category, that it is narrowly tailored the way Grutter did -- said, not the necessity prong and not the need prong -- not the necessity prong. 31
I think
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
most of his argument has been centered on that, so -MR. GARRE: That's right. And so that's the
second point I was going to make, which is that the holistic admissions process at issue here is a necessary counterpart to the state's top 10 percent Law and works to systematic -- to offset the systematic drawbacks of that law in achieving an interest that is indisputably compelling, the university's interest in assembling a broadly diverse student body. In the interest -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel, before -- I
need to figure out exactly what these numbers mean. Should someone who is one-quarter Hispanic check the Hispanic box or some different box? MR. GARRE: multiracial box. own determination. Application -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, I suppose a Your Honor, there is a
Students check boxes based on their Now, this is true under the Common
person who is one-quarter percent Hispanic, his own determination, would be, I'm one-quarter percent Hispanic. MR. GARRE: Then they would check that box,
Your Honor, as is true -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 32

They would check
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that box.
What about one-eighth? MR. GARRE: Your Honor, that was -- they --
they would make that self-determination, Your Honor. If -- if anyone, in any part of the application, violated some honor code then that could come out -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Would it violate the
honor code for someone who is one-eighth Hispanic and says, I identify as Hispanic, to check the Hispanic box? MR. GARRE: it would, Your Honor. I don't think -- I don't think I don't think that that issue
would be any different than the plan upheld in Grutter or the Harvard plan or in Bakke -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: any way, the racial identification? MR. GARRE: We do not, Your Honor, and no You don't check, in
college in America, the Ivy Leagues, the Little Ivy Leagues, that I'm aware of. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So how do you know
you have 15 percent African American -- Hispanic or 15 percent minority? MR. GARRE: Your Honor, the same way that
that determination is made in any other situation, I'm aware of, where race is taken into account -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: way." What is that way? 33
You say, "the same
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. GARRE: on that form.
Well, the persons self-identify
JUSTICE SCALIA: self-identify? MR. GARRE:
Do they have to
They do not, Your Honor.
Every
year people do not, and many of those applicants are admitted. JUSTICE SCALIA: And how do they decide?
You know, it's -- they want not just a critical mass in the school at large, but class by class? How do they
figure out that particular classes don't have enough? What -- do they -- somebody walks in the room and looks them over to see who looks -- who looks Asian, who looks black, who looks Hispanic? done? MR. GARRE: to be clear on this. No, Your Honor, and let me try Is that -- is that how it's
The university has never asserted
a compelling interest in any specific diversity in every single classroom. It has simply looked to classroom
diversity as one dimension of student body diversity. And that -JUSTICE SCALIA: talking about. I don't know what you are
I mean, it is either a factor that is Now, do they look to And if so, how
validly in this case or it isn't.
individual classroom diversity or not? 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
do they decide when classes are diverse? MR. GARRE: This Court in Grutter, Your
Honor -- and maybe the most important thing that was said during the first 30 minutes is, when given an opportunity to challenge Grutter, I understood my friend not to ask this Court to overrule it. This Court in Grutter recognized the obvious fact that the classroom is one of the most important environments where the educational benefits of diversity are realized. And so the University of Texas, in
determining whether or not it had reached a critical mass, looked to the classroom, along with -JUSTICE SCALIA: Fine. I'm asking how. How
did they look to the classroom? MR. GARRE: Well, Your Honor -Did they -- did they
JUSTICE SCALIA:
require everybody to check a box or they have somebody figure out, oh, this person looks 1/32nd Hispanic, and that's enough? MR. GARRE: They did a study, Your Honor,
that took into account the same considerations that they did in discussing the enrollment categories -JUSTICE SCALIA: kind of a study? MR. GARRE: Well, Your Honor, it's in the 35 What kind of a study? What
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Supplemental Joint Appendix. JUSTICE SCALIA: Yes. It doesn't explain to
me how they go about, classroom by classroom, deciding how many minorities there are. MR. GARRE: lists in each classroom. Your Honor, there are student The student lists -There are student
lists in each classroom that -- that have race identified with the students? MR. GARRE: No, no, Your Honor. Of course,
each classroom -- the university knows which students are taking its classes. And one can then, if you want
to gauge diversity in the classrooms, go back -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: what they checked on the form? MR. GARRE: a -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: question. That's a yes or no Your Honor, this was part of Oh, you go back to
You go back to what they checked on their
application form in deciding whether Economics 201 has a sufficient number of African Americans or Hispanics? MR. GARRE: That is information that is
available to the university, Your Honor, the race of students, if they've checked it on the application. But
I do want to be clear on this classroom diversity study. 36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
This was only one of many information points that the university looked to. JUSTICE ALITO: Well, on the classroom
diversity, how does the non-top 10 percent part of the plan further classroom diversity? My understanding is
that the university had over 5,000 classes that qualified as small, and the total number of African Americans and Hispanics who were admitted under the part of the plan that is challenged was just a little over 200. So how does that -- how does that -- how can that possibly do more than a tiny, tiny amount to increase classroom diversity? MR. GARRE: Well, Your Honor, first, I think There have been many more
that 200 number is erroneous. minority candidates -JUSTICE ALITO: MR. GARRE: basis. JUSTICE ALITO: MR. GARRE:
Per class?
No, not -- not on a per-class
Individuals in class.
I think in looking at the
classrooms, Your Honor, what the university found was shocking isolation against -JUSTICE ALITO: How many -- how many non-top
10 percent members of the two minorities at issue here 37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
are admitted in each class? MR. GARRE: Your Honor, we didn't look What we did -- in
specifically at that determination.
other words, to try to find whether there were holistic admits or percentage admits, we did conclude in 2004 -and, again, this was before -- we did the classroom study before the plan at issue was adopted, and at that time, there were no holistic admits taking race into account. And what we concluded was that we simply -if you looked at African Americans, for example, in 90 percent of the classes of the most common participatory size -JUSTICE ALITO: your answer. I really don't understand
You know the total number of, let's say, Yes or
African Americans in an entering class, right? no? MR. GARRE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE ALITO:
And you know the total
number who were admitted under the top 10 percent plan? MR. GARRE: at the time -JUSTICE ALITO: you'll get C, right? MR. GARRE: Your Honor, at the time -38 If you subtract A from B, We do, Your Honor. But, again,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 per class?
JUSTICE ALITO:
And what is the value of C
MR. GARRE:
Your Honor, I don't know the
answer to that question, and let me try to explain why the university didn't look specifically at -- to that. Because at the time that the classroom diversity study was conducted, it was before the holistic admissions process at issue here was adopted in 2003-2004. And so that determination wouldn't have been as important as just finding out are African Americans or Hispanics, underrepresented minorities, present at the university in such numbers that we are not experiencing racial -- racial isolation in the classroom. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What is that number?
What is the critical mass of African Americans and Hispanics at the university that you are working toward? MR. GARRE: Your Honor, we don't have one.
And -- and this Court in Grutter -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So how are we
supposed to tell whether this plan is narrowly tailored to that goal? MR. GARRE: this Court in Grutter. To look to the same criteria of This Court in Grutter
specifically rejected the notion that you could come up 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
with a fixed percentage.
Now -Now, does critical mass vary Does it vary from state to
JUSTICE ALITO: from -- from group to group? state? MR. GARRE:
It certainly is contextual. I think -- let me
think it could vary, Your Honor.
first say that my friends have -- throughout this litigation, not in this Court, asserted 20 percent as a critical mass, and that's lumping together different minority groups. JUSTICE ALITO: question? No. But could you answer my
What does the University of Texas -- the
University of Texas think about those questions? MR. GARRE: We -Is the critical mass for the
JUSTICE ALITO:
University of Texas dependent on the breakdown of the population of Texas? MR. GARRE: No, it's not at all. It's not. It's looking
JUSTICE ALITO: MR. GARRE:
It's not at all.
to -- to the educational benefits of diversity on campus, and I think we actually agree on what that means and what Grutter said it meant, in terms of -JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Garre, could you
explain -- I think you were trying to before -- what 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
seems to me the critical question in this case: didn't the 10 percent solution suffice?
Why
There were a
substantial number of minority members admitted as a result of the 10 percent solution. enough to achieve diversity? MR. GARRE: points, Your Honor. Well, let me make a couple of Why wasn't that
First, if you just looked at the
numbers -- we don't think it's the numbers, but if you looked at the numbers, after 7 years, racial diversity among these groups at the University of Texas had remained stagnant or worse. 2002, African American That's
enrollment had actually dropped to 3 percent. one part of it.
The other part of it is, if you look at the admissions under the top 10 percent plan, taking the -the top 10 percent of a racially identifiable high school may get you diversity that looks okay on paper, but it doesn't guarantee you diversity that produces educational benefits on campus. And that's one of the
considerations that the university took into account as well. JUSTICE SCALIA: Why? Why -- why doesn't it? MR. GARRE: Because, Your Honor, as is true I don't understand that.
for any group -- and the Harvard plan that this Court 41
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
approved in Bakke specifically recognized this, you would want representatives and different viewpoints from individuals within the same -- the same racial group, just as you would from individuals outside of that. JUSTICE SCALIA: What kind of viewpoints? I
mean, are they political viewpoints? MR. GARRE: Well, anyone's experiences,
where they grew up, the situations that they -- that they experience in their lives are going to affect their viewpoints. JUSTICE SCALIA: with, with racial diversity. about something else. MR. GARRE: Your Honor, I think it directly But this has nothing to do I mean, you're talking
impacts the educational benefits of diversity in this sense, that the minority candidate who has shown that -that he or she has succeeded in an integrated environment, has shown leadership, community service, the other factors that we looked at in holistic review, is precisely the kind of candidate that's going to come -- come on campus, help to break down racial barriers, work across racial lines, dispel -stereotypes -JUSTICE SCALIA: Also, the kind that is And,
likely to be included within the 10 percent rule. 42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
incidentally, when -- when was the 10 percent rule adopted? MR. GARRE: 1998, Your Honor.
But with respect to your -- your factual point, that's absolutely wrong, Your Honor. If you look
at the admissions data that we cite on page 34 of our brief, it shows the breakdown of applicants under the holistic plan and the percentage plan. And I don't think it's been seriously disputed in this -- this case to this point that, although the percentage plan certainly helps with minority admissions, by and large, the -- the minorities who are admitted tend to come from segregated, racially-identifiable schools. JUSTICE ALITO: Well, I thought that the
whole purpose of affirmative action was to help students who come from underprivileged backgrounds, but you make a very different argument that I don't think I've ever seen before. The top 10 percent plan admits lots of African Americans -- lots of Hispanics and a fair number of African Americans. But you say, well, it's -- it's
faulty because it doesn't admit enough African Americans and Hispanics who come from privileged backgrounds. you specifically have the example of the child of 43
And
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
successful professionals in Dallas. Now, that's -- that's your argument? If you
have -- you have an applicant whose parents are -- let's say they're -- one of them is a partner in your law firm in Texas, another one is a part -- is another corporate lawyer. They have income that puts them in the top
1 percent of earners in the country, and they have -parents both have graduate degrees. They deserve a leg-up against, let's say, an Asian or a white applicant whose parents are absolutely average in terms of education and income? MR. GARRE: No, Your Honor. And let me --
let me answer the question.
First of all, the example
comes almost word for word from the Harvard plan that this Court approved in Grutter and that Justice Powell held out in Bakke. JUSTICE ALITO: Well, how can the answer to
that question be no, because being an African American or being a Hispanic is a plus factor. MR. GARRE: Because, Your Honor, our point
is, is that we want minorities from different backgrounds. We go out of our way to recruit minorities
from disadvantaged backgrounds. JUSTICE KENNEDY: So what you're saying is
that what counts is race above all? 44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not race.
MR. GARRE: different experiences --
No, Your Honor, what counts is
JUSTICE KENNEDY:
Well, that's the
necessary -- that's the necessary response to Justice Alito's question. MR. GARRE: Well, Your Honor, what we want
is different experiences that are going to -- that are going to come on campus -JUSTICE KENNEDY: You want underprivileged So
of a certain race and privileged of a certain race. that's race. MR. GARRE:
No, Your Honors, it's -- it's I mean, in the LUAC
It's just the opposite.
decision, for example, this Court said that failing to take into account differences among members of the same race does a disservice -JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the -- but the reason
you're reaching for the privileged is so that members of that race who are privileged can be representative, and that's race. I just -MR. GARRE: It's -- it's members of the same
racial group, Your Honor, bringing different experiences. And to say that -- if you took any racial
group, if you -- if you had an admissions process that only tended to admit from a -- people from a particular 45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
background or perspective, you would want people from different perspectives. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: MR. GARRE: Counsel --
And that's -- that's the It's the
interests that we're discussing here.
interests that -- that the Harvard plan specifically adopts and lays out -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I understand my job,
under our precedents, to determine if your use of race is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. The
compelling interest you identify is attaining a critical mass of minority students at the University of Texas, but you won't tell me what the critical mass is. I supposed to do the job that our precedents say I should do? MR. GARRE: Your Honor, what -- what this How am
Court's precedents say is a critical mass is an environment in which students of underrepresented -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I know what you say,
but when will we know that you've reached a critical mass? MR. GARRE: Well -Grutter said there What
has to be a logical end point to your use of race. is the logical end point?
When will I know that you've 46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
reached a critical mass? MR. GARRE: Your Honor, this question, of And, again, I They
course, implicates Grutter itself.
understood my friend not to challenge that.
haven't challenged that diversity is a compelling interest at all. What -- what we look to, and we think that courts can review this determination, one, we look to feedback directly from students about racial isolation that they experience. for their race. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So, what, you Do they feel like spokespersons
conduct a survey and ask students if they feel racially isolated? MR. GARRE: looked at. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And that's the basis That's one of the things we
for our Constitutional determination? MR. GARRE: Your Honor, that's one of the
things that we looked at. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: others? MR. GARRE: Another is that we did look to Okay. What are the
enrollment data, which showed, for example, among African Americans, that African American enrollment at 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the University of Texas dropped to 3 percent in 2002 under the percentage plan. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: it satisfy the critical mass? MR. GARRE: Well, I think we all agree that It's well beyond At what level will
3 percent is not a critical mass. that. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:
Yes, but at what
level will it satisfy the requirement of critical mass? MR. GARRE: When we have an environment in
which African Americans do not -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: When -- how am I
supposed to decide whether you have an environment within particular minorities who don't feel isolated? MR. GARRE: Your Honor, part of this is a --
is a judgment that the admin -- the educators are going to make, but you would look to the same criteria -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: you tell me, that's good enough. MR. GARRE: No, Your Honor, not at all. You So, I see -- when
would look to the criteria that we looked at, the enrollment data, the feedback from the students. also took into account diversity in the classroom. took into account the racial climate on campus. JUSTICE ALITO: But would 3 percent be 48 We We
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
enough in New Mexico, your bordering state, where the African American population is around 2 percent? MR. GARRE: would. Your Honor, I don't think it
I mean, our concept to critical mass isn't tied It's undisputed in this case that we That's on page
to demographic.
are not pursuing any demographic goal. 138 of the Joint Appendix.
All of -- I think many key facts are undisputed here. modest factor. It's undisputed that race is only a It's undisputed that we're taking race
into account only to consider individuals in their totality. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Garre, I think that
the issue that my colleagues are asking is, at what point and when do we stop deferring to the University's judgment that race is still necessary? bottom line of this case. That's the
And you're saying, and I
think rightly because of our cases, that you can't set a quota, because that's what our cases say you can't do. So if we're not going to set a quota, what do you think is the standard we apply to make a judgment? MR. GARRE: I think the standard you would
apply is the one set forth in Grutter, and it comes from Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke, that you would look 49
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
to whether or not the University reached an environment in which members of underrepresented minorities, African Americans and Hispanics, do not feel like spokespersons for their race, members -- an environment where cross-racial understanding is promoted, an environment where the benefit -- educational benefits of diversity are realized. And the reason why the University of Texas concluded that that environment was not met here, it laid out in several different information points that this Court can review -JUSTICE SCALIA: But that holds for only -Sixteen more years,
only another what, 16 years, right? and you're going to call it all off. MR. GARRE:
Your Honor, we don't read We are
Grutter as establishing that kind of time clock. looking at this -JUSTICE SCALIA:
But you're appealing to
Grutter, and that's what it said. MR. GARRE: this Court's precedence. least the advocates are. Well, Your Honor, Grutter is We're guided by it here. At
And -- and what we would look
to is once -- we're looking at this every year, we're looking at it carefully. And once we reach that point,
of course, we're going to stop. 50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
But we also take -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: JUSTICE GINSBURG: JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. -Mr. Garre. Mr. Garre.
Some of the stuff that
Grutter says -- some of the stuff that Grutter says you agree with, some of the stuff that it says you don't agree with. MR. GARRE: Well, I don't know that I've It --
disagreed with anything it said. JUSTICE GINSBURG:
Mr. Garre, before your
time is -- runs out, the other point that I'd like you to answer is the argument based on Parents Involved, that the game is just too small to warrant using a racial criteria. MR. GARRE: Your Honor -Once you have the So how do you answer
JUSTICE GINSBURG:
10 percent, you don't need more.
the argument of it being too small? MR. GARRE: First I'd point to my friend's
own concessions, that the consideration of race has increased racial diversity at Hispanic and helps with minority enrollment. Appendix. Secondly, I'd point to the fact that African American and Hispanics' admissions did increase. 51
That's on page 138 of the Joint
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
African American admissions doubled from the period of 2002 to 2004. So this has had a real important impact
on diversity at the University of Texas. JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in terms of diversity,
how do you justify lumping together all Asian Americans? Do you think -- do you have a critical mass of Filipino Americans? Cambodian Americans -MR. GARRE: Your Honor --- Cambodian Americans?
JUSTICE ALITO: MR. GARRE:
-- the common form that's used
has Asian American, but also, next to that, has a form that says country of origin where that can be spelled out. JUSTICE ALITO: But do you have a critical
mass as to all the subgroups that fall within this enormous group of Asian Americans? MR. GARRE: Your Honor, we've looked to
whether or not we have a critical mass of underrepresented minorities, which is precisely what the Grutter decision asks us to do. I think -- if I can make a quick point on jurisdiction -JUSTICE KENNEDY: to that. MR. GARRE: I'm sorry. 52 If I could, before we get
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the class. don't.
JUSTICE KENNEDY:
Suppose we -- that you, in
your experience identify a numerical category a numerical standard, a numerical designation for critical mass: It's X percent. During the course of the
admissions process, can the admissions officers check to see how close they are coming to this numerical -MR. GARRE: On page 389 -JUSTICE KENNEDY: MR. GARRE: You -- you cannot do that? No. No, Your Honor, and we
We -- we wouldn't be monitoring
I think one of the problems -JUSTICE KENNEDY: But isn't that what
happened in Grutter; it allowed that. MR. GARRE: of the things -JUSTICE KENNEDY: Grutter is incorrect? MR. GARRE: No, Your Honor. It was one of What So are you saying that It did, Your Honor. It was one
the things that you pointed out in your dissent.
I'm saying is we don't have that problem, because -JUSTICE KENNEDY: or not you could do that. MR. GARRE: I'm -- I'm asking whether
And if --
I don't think so, because the
Grutter majority didn't understand it to be monitoring for the purposes of reaching a specific demographic. 53
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this:
They don't -- they
don't monitor, but race is the only one of your holistic factors that appears on the cover of every application, right? MR. GARRE: Well, all the holistic factors
are taking into account on the application, and they're listed at various points on the application. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I'm sorry. The
question was whether race is the only one of your holistic factors that appears on the cover of every application. MR. GARRE: That -- that is true on the
cover of the application. If -- could I make one point on jurisdiction? CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We will give you a
little more time since I'm going to give your friend a little more time. MR. GARRE: Thank you.
The fundamental problem with jurisdiction is First of all, they definitively cannot show that That's at
she was injured by any consideration of race.
pages 415 and 416 of the Joint Appendix, where it makes clear that Ms. Fisher would not have been admitted to the fall 2008 class at University of Texas no matter what her race, because her -54
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Just to be clear,
are you arguing that she doesn't have standing in an Article III sense? MR. GARRE: Yes, Your Honor. And I think --
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: your brief in one footnote, right?
You address that in We have an
obligation to consider it in every case, and what you gave us is one footnote in which you said it's hard to see how she could establish cognizable jurisdiction. MR. GARRE: And there is another part of
that that comes from the brief in opposition, Your Honor, which goes to the relief that she has requested. The declaratory and injunctive release -- relief that this case began with, that request has fallen out, and that's undisputed. So the only thing that is live in That
this case is a request for monetary damages.
request is on page 79 of the Joint Appendix, and it's focused exclusively on a request for the return of admissions fees. And the reason why that is not enough
to confer standing is that she would have paid the admissions fee no matter what policy the university admissions had. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What about -- what
about our Jacksonville case that said it is an injury to be forced to be part of a process in which there is 55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
race-conscious evaluation? MR. GARRE: Texas v. Lesage says that
that -- that injury is not sufficient in a backward-looking case like this, where you only have monetary damages. In Jacksonville and all the other
cases, they involved forward-looking claims for declaratory injunctive release where people who were going to go out and get contracts again. University -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I thought your So Texas
friend -- your friend told us that these remedial issues and damages issues had been segregated out of the process and are still available for remand. MR. GARRE: Your Honor, that is not an It's true that
answer to jurisdiction for this reason:
it is bifurcated in the sense that we could go and prove damages, but the complaint makes no doubt that the only request for monetary damages is a request for admissions fees. That -- it says that explicitly. And this Court
has said that relief that does not remedy the injury suffered cannot bootstrap a plaintiff into Federal court. That is the very essence of the redressability That comes from the Seal Co. Case. JUSTICE SCALIA: injury she suffered. Well, that's part of the
requirement.
It's -- it's not the only injury 56
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
perhaps. MR. REIN: It's the only -But she -- she had to pay
JUSTICE SCALIA:
an admissions fee for a process in which she was not treated fairly. MR. GARRE: And the reason why -Why shouldn't she get her
JUSTICE SCALIA: money back? MR. REIN:
The reason why the payment of
that fee doesn't redress the injury, Your Honor, is that she would have paid it even if Texas didn't consider race at all; and, therefore, the payment of the application fee back doesn't remedy the injury that she is complaining about. JUSTICE BREYER: Can I ask you to get -- if
this is easy, do it; if not, don't. I wanted to use accurate numbers, and so I discovered -- I wanted to find out how many universities actually used a Grutter-type process last year or the year before, etcetera. And one of your amici, the
admissions officers, according to our library, is the only place that has that information, though it's public, and I didn't want them to do it because they are an amici of yours. And you are both here, both sides,
so if you can agree on -- simply, roughly -- what that 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
number is, I would like to know it; otherwise, I will -I can use pre-Grutter numbers which are public and available. MR. GARRE: specific numbers. Your Honor, I don't have
Obviously, the Ivy Leagues and Little
Ivy Leagues that have filed amicus briefs are using it. And this Court recognized in Grutter that the best universities, many of the best universities in America, have been using these plans for 30 years or more. JUSTICE SCALIA: Since we are asking
questions just about just curiosity, I am curious to know how many -- this is a very ambitious racial program here at the University of Texas. How many people are
there in the affirmative action department of the University of Texas? Do you have any idea? There must
be a lot of people to, you know, to monitor all these classes and do all of this assessment of race throughout the thing. There would be a large number of people be
out of a job, wouldn't we, wouldn't they, if we suddenly went to just 10 percent? MR. GARRE: Your Honor, one of the things
that the University of Texas does monitor is the racial climate on campus. It does that to improve the
experience for all students on campus. JUSTICE SCALIA: How many people? 58
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. GARRE:
I don't -You don't.
JUSTICE SCALIA: MR. GARRE:
-- have a specific number of
people, Your Honor, but it is -- it is an important part of improving the educational experience for all students at the University of Texas no matter what their race. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: MR. GARRE: Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, Your Honor. General Verrilli.
ORAL ARGUMENT OF DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR., FOR UNITED STATES, AS AMICUS CURIAE, SUPPORTING THE RESPONDENTS GENERAL VERRILLI: may it please the Court: In resolving this case, it is important to focus on what is, or more precisely, what is not at issue. Petitioner is not challenging Grutter's reaffirmation of the principle of Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke that student body diversity is a compelling interest that can justify the consideration of race in university admissions. Colleges and Mr. Chief Justice, and
universities across the country have relied on that principle in shaping their admissions policies, and it is of vital interest to the United States that they 59
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
continue to be able to do so. The core of our interest is in ensuring that the Nation's universities produce graduates who are going to be effective citizens and effective leaders in an increasingly diverse society, and effective competitors in diverse global markets. JUSTICE ALITO: Does the United States agree
with Mr. Garre that African American and Hispanic applicants from privileged backgrounds deserve a preference? GENERAL VERRILLI: differently, Justice Alito. I understand that
Here's how we understand
what is going on with respect to the admissions process in the University of Texas, and I am going to address it directly. so. The top 10 percent plan certainly does produce some ethnic diversity. in. Significant numbers get I just think it needs a bit of context to do
The problem is the university can't control that
diversity in the same way it can with respect to the 25 percent of the class that is admitted through the holistic process. So my understanding of what the university here is looking to do, and what universities generally are looking to do in this circumstance, is not to grant 60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
a preference for privilege, but to make individualized decisions about applicants who will directly further the educational mission. For example, they will look for
individuals who will play against racial stereotypes just by what they bring: The African American fencer;
the Hispanic who has -- who has mastered classical Greek. They can also look for people who have a
demonstrated track record of -JUSTICE ALITO: If you have two applicants They both
who are absolutely the same in every respect:
come from affluent backgrounds, well-educated parents. One falls within two of the groups that are given a preference, the other doesn't. It's a marginal case.
It's the last -- the last position available in the class. get in. Under the Texas plan, one gets in; one doesn't Now, do you agree with that or not? GENERAL VERRILLI: JUSTICE ALITO: No. I think --
Do you agree with -- do you
agree that that is an incorrect statement of the facts, or do you agree that that's an incorrect understanding of the Equal Protection Clause? GENERAL VERRILLI: I think it's both. I
think the -- there is no automatic preference in Texas. And I think this is right in the -- it says at page 398a of the Joint Appendix -- the -- they describe the 61
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
process as saying, "An applicant's race is considered only to the extent that the applicant, viewed holistically, will contribute to the broader vision of diversity desired by the university." JUSTICE SCALIA: Yes, but -- but the
hypothetical is that the two applicants are entirely the same in all other respects. GENERAL VERRILLI: JUSTICE SCALIA: Right. But the point --
And if -- if the ability to
give a racial preference means anything at all, it certainly has to mean that, in the -- in the hypothetical given -- given by Justice Alito, the minority student gets in and the other one doesn't. GENERAL VERRILLI: Justice Scalia. I disagree,
What the -- Texas, I think, has made
clear -- and I think this is a common feature of these kinds of holistic approaches -- that not everyone in an underrepresented group gets a preference, gets a plus factor. JUSTICE SCALIA: It's not a matter of not
everyone; it's a matter of two who are identical in all other respects. GENERAL VERRILLI: JUSTICE SCALIA: Right. And what does the racial
preference mean if it doesn't mean that in that 62

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
situation the minority applicant wins and the other one loses? GENERAL VERRILLI: preference in that situation. There may not be a racial It's going to depend on a
holistic, individualized consideration of the applicant. JUSTICE KENNEDY: argument. I don't understand this
I thought that the whole point is that
sometimes race has to be a tie-breaker and you are saying that it isn't. away. Well, then, we should just go
Then -- then we should just say you can't use
race, don't worry about it. GENERAL VERRILLI: tie-breaker. I don't think it's a
I think it functions more subtly than
that, Justice Kennedy. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: more subtly in every case. It doesn't function
We have findings by both
courts below -- and I'm reading from the court of appeals opinion at Petitioner appendix page 33. "The district court found that race is indisputably a meaningful factor that can make a difference in the evaluation of a student's application." If it doesn't make a difference, then we
have a clear case; they're using race in a way that doesn't make a difference. The supposition has to be
that race is a determining factor. 63

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that.
We've heard a lot about holistic and all That's fine. But unless it's a determining
factor, in some cases they're using race when it doesn't serve the purpose at all. That can't be the situation. It can make a difference.
GENERAL VERRILLI:
It just doesn't invariably make a difference with respect to every minority applicant, and that's the key -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You have to agree
that it makes a difference in some cases. GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes, it does. Okay.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: GENERAL VERRILLI:
But it doesn't
necessarily make a difference in the situation that Justice Alito posited -JUSTICE GINSBURG: But that's the same --
the same would be true in -- of the Bakke plan, that in some cases it's going to make a difference. would be true under Grutter. The same
The same would be true
under the policies now in existence at the military academies. GENERAL VERRILLI: That -- that is exactly
right, Justice Ginsburg, but the point is that it's not a mechanical factor. Now, with respect to the implementation 64
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
of -- and the narrow tailoring inquiry, with respect to the University's implementation of this -- of its compelling interest, I do think it's clear that, although the Petitioner says she's challenging implementation, that this plan meets every requirement of Grutter and addresses the concern of Justice Kennedy that you raised in dissent in Grutter. Whether Texas
had to or not, it did address that concern. There's no quota. everyone else. factor. Everyone competes against
Race is not a mechanical automatic
It's an holistic individualized consideration.
And because of the way the process is structured, they do not monitor the racial composition on an ongoing basis. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: General, I think, as I
take your answer, is that the supposition of Justice Alito's question is truly impossible under this system. There are not two identical candidates because
there are not identical mechanical factors that -except the 10 percent plan. Under the PIA, the factors are so varied, so contextually set, that no two applicants ever could be identical in the sense that they hypothesize. GENERAL VERRILLI: That's correct. They
make specific individualized judgments about each 65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
applicant -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: can be the same -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: To get back to what Because no two people
we're talking about, you -- as I understand it, race by itself is taken into account, right? That's the only
thing on the cover of the application; they take race into account. And the district court found -- and you're not challenging -- that race makes a difference in some cases, right? GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes. But the key,
Mr. Chief Justice, is the way it makes a difference. And it makes a difference by casting the accomplishments of the individual applicant in a particular light, or the potential of an individual applicant in a particular light. What -- what universities are looking for principally with respect to this individualized consideration is what is this individual going to contribute to our campus? And race can have a bearing
on that because it can have a bearing on evaluating what they've accomplished, and it can have a bearing for the reasons I tried to identify earlier to Justice Alito on what they can bring to the table, what they can bring to 66
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that freshman seminar, what they can bring to the student government, what they can bring to the campus environment -JUSTICE BREYER: All right, sir. But it is
the correct answer to Justice Alito's -- if there are ever two applicants where the GPA, the test -- the grades, the SA1, SA2, leadership, activities, awards, work experience, community service, family's economic status, school's socioeconomic status, family's responsibility, single-parent home, languages other than English spoken at home, and SAT score relative to school's average race, if you have a situation where those -- all those things were absolutely identical, than the person would be admitted on the bounds of race. GENERAL VERRILLI: (Laughter.) GENERAL VERRILLI: Because -- because -- I'm Neither -Gentlemen, Not necessarily.
trying to make a simple point here. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: don't write -GENERAL VERRILLI: JUSTICE ALITO:
-- neither might get in.
Let me withdraw that
hypothetical if you don't like that. Before your time runs out, let me ask you another question. 67
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Your ROTC argument -- you make -- you make -- you devote a lot of attention in your brief to the military. me? GENERAL VERRILLI: JUSTICE ALITO: Sure. Could you explain your ROTC argument to
Why is it important for the
ROTC program for commissioned officers that Texas have this other plan on top of the top 10 percent plan? GENERAL VERRILLI: Our -- our military
effectiveness depends on a pipeline of well-qualified and well-prepared candidates from diverse backgrounds who are comfortable exercising leadership in diverse settings. JUSTICE ALITO: Oh, I understand that. And
just -- I don't want to cut you off, but -GENERAL VERRILLI: JUSTICE ALITO: Right.
-- because the time is about
to expire, so you've got a marginal candidate who wants to go to the University of Texas at Austin and is also interested in ROTC. Maybe if race is taken into Maybe if it isn't, he
account, the candidate gets in. doesn't get in.
How does that impact the military?
The candidate will then probably go to Texas A&M or Texas Tech? Is it your position that he will be
an inferior military officer if he went to one of those 68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
schools? GENERAL VERRILLI: JUSTICE ALITO: argument. GENERAL VERRILLI: The point of educational No, Justice Alito.
Then I don't understand the
diversity, the point of what the University of Texas is trying to achieve is to create an environment in which everyone develops an appropriate sense of citizenship, everyone develops the capacity to lead in a racially diverse society, and so it will benefit every ROTC applicant from the University of Texas. And 43 percent of the Officer Corps comes from the ROTC. It's a very significant source of our
military leadership. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: General, how -- what
is your view on how we tell whether -- when the University has attained critical mass? GENERAL VERRILLI: I don't think critical --
I agree with my friend that critical mass is not a number. I think it would be very ill-advised to suggest
that it is numerical. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: lot about what it's not. Okay. I'm hearing a
I'd like to know what it is
because our responsibility is to decide whether this use of race is narrowly tailored to achieving, under this 69
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
University's view, critical mass. GENERAL VERRILLI: Mr. Chief Justice? CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: GENERAL VERRILLI: Oh, yes. May I answer,
Thank you.
I think -- I don't think that this is a situation in which the Court simply affords complete deference to the University's judgment that it hasn't yet achieved the level of diversity that it needs to accomplish its educational mission. I think that the Court ought to -- has to make its own independent judgment. I think the way the
Court would go about making that independent judgment is to look at the kind of information that the university considered. That could be information about the It could be information about
composition of the class. classroom diversity.
It could be information about It could be information
retention and graduation rates.
about -- that's specific to the university's context in history. Is it a university that has had a history of A series of
racial incidents and trouble or not? factors.
And then what the Court's got to do is satisfy itself that the University has substantiated its conclusion based on that -- based on the information 70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it's considered, that it needs to consider race to further advance the educational goals that Grutter has identified as a compelling interest. And I will say, I do think, as the number of minority enrollees gets higher, the burden on the university to do that is going to get harder to meet. But I don't think -- I don't think there is a number, and I don't think it would be prudent for this Court to suggest that there is a number, because it would raise exactly the kind of problem that I -- that I think Justice Kennedy identified in the Grutter dissent of creating hydraulic pressure towards that number. JUSTICE SCALIA: We should probably stop
calling it critical mass then, because mass, you know, assumes numbers, either in size or a certain weight. GENERAL VERRILLI: JUSTICE SCALIA: it mass. GENERAL VERRILLI: JUSTICE SCALIA: something like that. (Laughter.) GENERAL VERRILLI: I agree that critical I agree. Call it a cloud or I agree. So we should stop calling
mass -- the idea of critical mass has taken on a life of its own in a way that's not helpful because it doesn't 71
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
focus the inquiry where it should be. If I may just add one word in conclusion. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: GENERAL VERRILLI: Sure.
Thank you.
I think it is important, Your Honors, not just to the government, but to the country, that our universities have the flexibility to shape their environments and their educational experience to make a reality of the principle that Justice Kennedy identified in Parents Involved, that our strength comes from people of different races, different creeds, different cultures, uniting in a commitment to freedom, and to more a perfect union. That's what the University of Texas is trying to do with its admissions policy, and it should be upheld. Thank you. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. Rein, 10 minutes. REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF BERT W. REIN ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER MR. REIN: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Thank you, General.
That's more than I expected. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: playing field level. 72
Just keeping the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on.
MR. REIN:
Well, that's what we're seeking
in this case, Mr. Chief Justice, a level playing field for Abby Fisher. So it's most apt at this point.
There's just three things I want to touch First, there's been a lot of back and forth on
standing, but, as we have pointed out, that really relates to merits. And I just want to make clear that
we do not accept the premise of that footnote, that she would not have entered under any circumstances; that they've asserted that, but, in fact, she was considered for the summer program, which is -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Is your complaint
limited to injunctive relief and the return of the $100? As written, is that what it's limited to? MR. REIN: No, because it said, "any and all
other damages," at the point when we were writing it, which was -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: In Arizonans and Alvarez
we said any all -- any and other -- all damages is too speculative. Is what you actually see what I said:
injunctive relief and the return of the $100. MR. REIN: And what I'm saying is that we
never had the opportunity to develop the full damages -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: MR. REIN: In --
-- because of -73
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 damages?
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:
In Arizonans and Alvarez
we said you can't manufacture standing after the fact. Did you ask only for injunctive relief and the $100, specifically? MR. REIN: The only specific number in the
complaint, because of the point in time when it was filed was the application fee, which we believe -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And you would have paid
that no matter what; under any system of admission you would have paid the same $100. MR. REIN: You would have paid the fee in
return for a fair processing of the application, which she did not receive, and we think that is a claim that will be sustained. It is not tested at this point.
And the second thing is, because of the way the case was bifurcated, with the agreement of all and the district court as well, we did not develop the additional damages here. We reserved the right to
amend, and as things have progressed -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: For what, nominal
MR. REIN:
No -And then how do you get
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: around Arizonans? MR. REIN:
Because as -- as in the BIO, what 74
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
UT pointed out was there are other kinds of financial injuries which were not ascertainable at the time the complaint was filed because we were trying to put her into the university. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: She was going to get a
better job because she went to a different university? MR. REIN: suggested. That's one of the things they
There are differences in cost between the --
what she paid at LSU and what she would have paid at UT. I'm just saying, these are all reserved questions and they don't go to standing. Bakke. Let me go to another issue that, you know, I think I never completed my answer to Justice Breyer. Where we stand on what you should do about Grutter is as follows. We recognize, as in the words of -- that the Solicitor General just issued -- that there is an interest which is cognizable in diversity. That is -The Court made that clear in
that was the root question in Grutter, could you recognize it at all. But what we are concerned about,
as you are seeing here, is universities like UT and many others have read it to be green light, use race, no end point, no discernible target, no critical mass written, you know, in circumstances reduced to something that can 75
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
be reviewed. And as long as you don't cross two lines, determinative points and fixed quotas -- "quotas" meaning we will fill this quota exclusively with who we deem to be under-represented -- you are okay. think that's the way Grutter was intended. We don't
Grutter was
intended to say this is an area of great caution; using race itself raises all kinds of red flags, so before you use race make a determination whether really, your interest in critical mass -- that is, in the dialogue and interchange, the educational interest, is that -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: You are not suggesting
that if every minority student that got into a university got into only the physical education program; and in this particular university that -- that physical education program includes all the star athletes; so every star athlete in the school happens to be black or Hispanic or Asian or something else, but they have now reached the critical mass of 10, 15, 20 percent -- that the university in that situation couldn't use race? MR. REIN: about -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Grutter permits? MR. REIN: Well, if you are saying there's a 76 In the holistic way that Well, I think you are talking
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
-- a differentiated department of physical education, which is like a separate college, you have changed the nature of the hypothetical. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: No, it's just that every
one of their students who happens to be a minority is going to end up in that program. You don't think the
university could consider that it needs a different diversity in its other departments? MR. REIN: Well, if that were the case,
remember the factor that is causing it, and you are assuming, is choice. students. You have a critical mass of
They choose to major in different things, and
that's one of the problems with the classroom diversity concept. They never asked the question why, if
40 percent of our students are minorities, are they not in the small classrooms? Why does that happen? You
Statistically you would say that's an aberration. might ask the question what's causing it? order to fit -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:
Because in
Aren't they saying the
same thing when they say, when we are looking at the holistic measure, we are looking for that student who is a -- that minority student who is a nuclear scientist? MR. REIN: No. Because they don't take into 77
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
account your interests, they don't ask you, are you going to join ROTC, they don't ask you are you going to major -- major in physics. And when it comes time in
the UT system to allocate access to different majors, they do that in a way that is basically premised on academic index. So they have a two-tiered admission system. They are only here focused -- their preference goes to admission as such, it doesn't go to sorting people out by majors. And if I might then say to Justice Breyer, I think our answer is, when we see what UT is doing, what we that -- Grutter's -- you know, it has been perceived as a green light; go ahead and use race, race which is otherwise really a highly questionable, an abominable kind of sorting out. That unchecked use of race, which
we think is -- has been spawned by misreading of Grutter, needs to be corralled. JUSTICE GINSBURG: So what we -Is it any more unchecked
than the Harvard plan which -- that started all this off in 1978, decided by Justice Powell? Is it any different
from how race is used in our military academies? MR. REIN: different questions. different world. Well, I mean, they are two The Harvard plan is a very
It's a plan of wholly individualized 78

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
admission comparing individuals one on one, to establish the platonic ideal of the class as the educational mission. This is not what is going on at UT. This is not an individualized, I will look at you. I will score you. I will score you
individually.
But as they keep saying, at the point of
admission, I am not admitting people; I am admitting categories, boxes; and that relates to Justice Alito's question. I thought your hypothetical, Justice Alito, was entirely fair, because in the way they do their system, in the PAI scoring, you can figure out that two people would have had the same PAI score but for race. It's an add-on. It allows them to boost the PAS So -- it is not infrequent.
component of the PAI score.
There are many, many candidates who will score the same PAI, may even have the same AI, and then you boost some of them. Now, what UT says is, well, we don't boost all the minorities. And that -- they stood here today,
and they said in their briefs, we want to boost the ones we like. We want those affluent minorities who we think That is contrary
will improve, in our view, dialogue.
indeed to the fact that they give points in the same system for socioeconomic disadvantage. 79
It's at odds
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
with itself. But it's purely race, and it comes to the ultimate question then, which, Chief Justice, you were asking: Where is the end point? If you have nothing to
gauge the success of the program, if you can't even say at the beginning we don't have critical mass because we don't know what it is and we refuse to say what it is, there is no judicial supervision, there is no strict scrutiny and there is no end point to what they are doing. So what we have said, and it comes right back to Justice Breyer, how would you write it, you can clarify it, you can say Grutter properly applies, requires you to do A, B, C, and -- and we've said in our brief that would be satisfactory. But to the extent
that you then have it surviving side by side, there could be enormous confusion. JUSTICE BREYER: So what you want me to do
is go read back what we wrote in Grutter, go look what the underlying determinations of critical mass were there, go look exactly how it is being done in Texas -which I have charts that help me see that -- and I will find enough of a difference that I can write some words that can be administered by 2,000 or 3,000 -- a thousand Federal judges as they try to deal with programs like 80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
this, in -- that's the point, is that right? MR. REIN: Well, I'm saying if you clarify
the needs and the necessity point, if you then look at some of the other deficiencies and clarify the -- the consideration of reasonably available alternatives as a necessity, if you then attribute that -- you attribute the weaknesses of the Texas program to the absence of those factors, I think you can fashion a result in this case which may or may not have to, quote, "overrule" Grutter. It's really a matter, what do you -- do you want to clearly restate what it is that allows the use of this odious classification? That's what we are
talking about, it's a narrow window; and it should be stated as a narrow window. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So you don't want to
overrule Grutter, you just want to gut it. MR. REIN: Excuse me? You just want to gut it.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:
You don't want to overrule it, but you just want to gut it. MR. REIN: Well -Now you want to tell
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:
universities that once you reach a certain number, then you can't use race anymore. 81
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 counsel. to gut it.
MR. REIN:
Justice Sotomayor, I don't want
And the only way one could reach that
conclusion is to assume that Grutter is an unlimited mandate without end point to just use race to your own satisfaction and to be deferred to in your use of race. That is unacceptable. That is the invasion of Abigail
Fisher's rights to equal protection under the law. Thank you. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel,
The case is submitted. (Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the case in the above-entitled matter was submitted.)
82
83
A Abby 73:3 aberration 77:17 Abigail 1:3 3:19 82:6 ability 5:23 22:6 62:9 able 5:16 60:1 abominable 78:15 above-entitled 1:12 82:13 absence 81:7 absent 10:14 13:12 absolutely 43:5 44:10 61:10 67:13 academic 22:9 27:13 78:6 academies 64:21 78:22 accede 13:18 accept 15:23 73:8 acceptable 9:22 accepted 4:2 access 4:19 78:4 accommodate 22:6 accomplish 70:10 accomplished 66:23 accomplishme... 66:14 account 31:16 33:23 35:21 38:9 41:20 45:15 48:23,24 49:11 54:6 66:6,8 68:21 78:1 accurate 57:17 achieve 5:16 8:25 22:17
23:16 27:21 41:5 69:7 achieved 18:13 70:9 Achievement 22:10 achieving 32:7 69:25 act 13:4 action 4:3 11:21 43:16 58:14 activities 67:7 add 21:21 72:2 addition 14:2 additional 74:18 address 55:5 60:14 65:8 addresses 65:6 add-on 30:15 79:14 adequate 11:2 admin 48:16 administered 80:24 admission 8:1 16:3,5,22 22:9 22:16,25 26:11 74:9 78:7,9 79:1,7 admissions 16:19,20 20:25 21:7,10,24 24:1 26:6 27:2 28:2 31:14 32:4 39:7 41:15 43:6,12 45:24 51:25 52:1 53:5,5 55:19,21,22 56:18 57:4,21 59:22,24 60:13 72:15 admissions-plus 3:16 admit 28:2 43:23 45:25 admits 20:24
22:17 24:21,22 38:5,5,8 43:20 admitted 5:12 6:8,18,18,20 7:18,25 25:17 34:7 37:8 38:1 38:20 41:3 43:13 54:23 60:21 67:14 admitting 79:7,7 adopted 12:11 22:4 38:7 39:8 43:2 adoption 21:12 adopts 46:7 advance 71:2 advocates 50:22 affect 42:9 affirmative 4:3 11:21 43:16 58:14 affluent 61:11 79:22 afford 31:4 affords 70:7 African 21:20 25:23 27:2 29:15 33:19 36:21 37:7 38:11,16 39:10 39:16 41:11 43:21,22,23 44:18 47:25,25 48:11 49:2 50:2 51:24 52:1 60:8 61:5 aggressive 10:5 agree 8:4 10:7 12:2,20 15:18 40:22 48:5 51:6,7 57:25 60:7 61:16,18 61:19,20 64:9 69:19 71:16,19 71:23 agreement 74:16
ahead 26:17 78:14 AI 79:17 AI/PAI 20:23 22:4 AL 1:7 Alito 20:9 37:3 37:17,20,24 38:14,19,23 39:1 40:2,11 40:15,19 43:15 44:17 48:25 52:4,9,14 60:7 60:12 61:9,18 62:12 64:15 66:24 67:22 68:6,14,17 69:2,3 79:10 Alito's 22:14 45:5 65:17 67:5 79:8 alleged 7:2 allocate 78:4 allowed 5:1 17:17 53:13 allows 19:13 79:14 81:12 alternative 23:18,23,24 25:15,16 27:8 alternatives 13:2 23:13 27:20 28:7,10 29:6 30:20 81:5 Alvarez 73:18 74:1 ambitious 58:12 amend 74:19 America 33:16 58:8 American 25:23 27:2 33:19 41:11 44:18 47:25 49:2 51:25 52:1,11 60:8 61:5
Americans 16:6 21:20 29:7,15 30:21 36:21 37:8 38:11,16 39:10,16 43:21 43:22,23 47:25 48:11 50:3 52:5,7,7,9,16 amici 57:20,24 amicus 1:22 2:10 58:6 59:11 amount 37:12 analysis 12:21 analyze 23:20 28:6 analyzed 17:11 announced 11:9 answer 4:1 10:16 13:7 25:21 26:19,21 26:22,25 28:5 38:15 39:4 40:11 44:13,17 51:12,17 56:15 65:16 67:5 70:2 75:14 78:12 answered 6:10 13:11 anybody 25:6 30:14 anymore 81:25 anyone's 42:7 apparent 4:18 appealing 50:18 appeals 63:18 APPEARAN... 1:15 appears 54:3,10 appendix 36:1 49:7 51:23 54:22 55:17 61:25 63:18 applicable 3:20 applicant 12:13 44:3,10 62:2
84
63:1,5 64:7 66:1,15,16 69:11 applicants 20:3 31:18 34:6 43:7 60:9 61:2 61:9 62:6 65:22 67:6 applicant's 62:1 application 5:8 19:22 32:18 33:4 36:20,24 54:3,6,7,11,13 57:13 63:22 66:7 74:7,12 applies 80:13 apply 5:9 23:15 49:21,24 approaches 62:17 appropriate 18:24 19:12 69:8 approved 31:20 42:1 44:15 approving 3:16 approximately 20:25 apt 73:3 area 76:7 argue 9:8,11 22:15 28:18 argued 28:17 arguing 9:4 12:6 28:16 55:2 argument 1:13 2:2,5,8,12 3:8 9:13 31:9 32:1 43:18 44:2 51:12,18 59:10 63:7 68:1,3 69:4 72:20 Arizonans 73:18 74:1,24 arrived 21:17 Article 55:3 ascertainable
75:2 Asian 16:6 29:7 29:18 30:21 34:13 44:10 52:5,11,16 76:18 Asians 21:21 29:9,10 aside 14:16 18:23 19:2 asked 23:19 77:14 asking 8:8 35:13 49:14 53:21 58:10 80:4 asks 13:12 52:20 assembling 32:8 assert 6:17 asserted 6:23 34:17 40:8 73:10 assessment 20:3 58:17 assume 22:22 82:3 assumed 9:24,25 16:18 29:17 assumes 71:15 assuming 18:21 77:11 athlete 76:17 athletes 76:16 attained 69:17 attaining 46:11 attempting 9:19 attended 5:15 attention 68:2 attribute 81:6,6 Austin 1:6 3:7 3:15 68:19 automatic 61:23 65:10 automatically 5:10,12 available 23:12 23:17 27:20 28:10 30:19
beginning 80:6 behalf 1:16,18 2:4,7,14 3:9 31:10 72:21 believe 11:16 14:13 28:24 74:7 benefit 23:9 50:6 69:10 benefits 35:9 40:21 41:19 42:15 50:6 B BERT 1:16 2:3 B 1:20 2:9 28:15 2:13 3:8 72:20 38:23 59:10 best 58:7,8 80:14 better 75:6 back 11:1 22:13 beyond 25:12 22:25 26:3 48:6 36:13,14,19 bifurcated 5:23 57:8,13 66:4 56:16 74:16 73:5 80:12,19 BIO 74:25 background bit 26:1 60:15 46:1 black 15:9 29:24 backgrounds 34:14 76:17 43:17,24 44:22 blacks 14:6 44:23 60:9 body 14:22 61:11 68:11 22:17 32:9 backward-loo... 34:20 59:20 56:4 boost 30:16 Bakke 7:11,11 79:14,17,19,21 31:20 33:12 bootstrap 56:21 42:1 44:16 bordering 49:1 49:25 59:20 bottom 49:17 64:17 75:12 bounds 67:14 balance 15:11 box 32:14,14,16 balanced 22:9 32:23 33:1,8 29:20 35:17 balancing 15:15 boxes 32:16 79:8 barriers 42:22 Boy 19:24 based 32:16 break 42:21 51:12 70:25,25 breakdown basically 78:5 40:16 43:7 basis 9:5 37:19 breaking 29:14 47:17 65:14 Breyer 8:6,13 bearing 66:21 8:17 9:2,7,12 66:22,23 12:2,22 16:8 began 55:14 16:16 25:19
36:23 56:13 58:3 61:14 81:5 average 21:25 44:11 67:12 averaged 25:23 awards 67:7 aware 33:17,23 awfully 19:24 A&M 68:24 a.m 1:14 3:2
26:5,15,18,21 27:4 57:15 67:4 75:14 78:11 80:12,18 Breyer's 11:19 brief 17:23 18:1 22:19 29:17 43:7 55:6,11 68:2 80:15 briefs 58:6 79:21 bring 61:5 66:25 66:25 67:1,2 bringing 45:22 broader 62:3 broadly 32:9 burden 3:15 17:6,7 71:5 C C 2:1 3:1 38:24 39:1 80:14 call 19:15,16 50:14 71:20 called 16:4 calling 71:14,17 Cambodian 52:7,9 campus 10:19 16:6 18:3 40:22 41:19 42:21 45:8 48:24 58:23,24 66:21 67:2 candidate 42:16 42:20 68:18,21 68:23 candidates 37:16 65:18 68:11 79:16 CAP 5:14 capacity 69:9 capped 25:12 carefully 8:18 50:24 carry 3:15 4:16 case 3:6 4:17,22
85
6:7 7:13 8:14 8:23 9:3 13:1,8 34:24 41:1 43:10 49:5,17 55:7,14,16,24 56:4,23 59:15 61:13 63:16,23 73:2 74:16 77:9 81:9 82:11,12 cases 7:1 49:18 49:19 56:6 64:3,10,18 66:11 casting 66:14 categories 21:21 28:21 35:22 79:8 category 28:22 28:23 31:23 53:2 caused 4:2 causing 77:10 77:18 caution 76:7 centered 32:1 central 3:14,18 certain 6:6 12:10 20:7 45:10,10 71:15 81:24 certainly 10:5 15:11,18 25:15 29:1 31:1 40:5 43:11 60:17 62:11 certainty 26:13 challenge 35:5 47:4 challenged 37:9 47:5 challenging 18:22 24:14 59:18 65:4 66:10 chance 7:25 change 8:18
17:5 27:7 changed 77:2 charts 80:22 check 32:13,16 32:23,25 33:8 33:13 35:17 53:5 checked 36:15 36:19,24 Chief 3:3,5,10 3:12 21:15 31:3,4,8,11 32:11,19,25 33:6,13,18,24 36:7,14,18 39:15,20 46:3 46:8,19,23 47:12,17,21 48:3,8,12,18 54:1,8,15 55:1 55:5,23 56:10 59:7,9,13 63:15 64:9,12 66:4,13 67:19 69:15,22 70:3 70:4 72:3,18 72:22,24 73:2 80:3 82:9 child 43:25 choice 7:19 77:11 choose 25:11 77:12 Circuit 25:9 circumstance 5:1 60:25 circumstances 73:9 75:25 cite 43:6 citizens 60:4 citizenship 69:8 claim 4:7 5:24 6:3 7:21,23 74:13 claimed 6:6 claiming 6:2 claims 56:6
clarify 80:13 81:2,4 class 7:18 8:21 15:10 16:7,23 29:25 30:8 34:10,10 37:17 37:20 38:1,16 39:2 53:11 54:24 60:21 61:15 70:16 79:2 classes 17:11,15 29:22 34:11 35:1 36:12 37:6 38:12 58:17 classical 61:6 classification 81:13 classroom 11:7 30:23 31:1 34:19,19,25 35:8,12,14 36:3,3,6,8,11 36:25 37:3,5 37:13 38:6 39:6,14 48:23 70:17 77:13 classrooms 36:13 37:22 77:16 Clause 3:19 61:21 clear 6:7 27:5 34:17 36:25 54:23 55:1 62:16 63:23 65:3 73:7 75:11 clearly 81:12 climate 48:24 58:23 clock 50:16 close 22:1 53:6 cloud 71:20 code 33:5,7 cognizable 4:13
55:9 75:19 colleagues 49:14 college 33:16 77:2 Colleges 59:22 combination 14:21 22:3 combining 30:4 come 19:2 22:25 33:5 39:25 42:21,21 43:13 43:17,24 45:8 61:11 comes 5:2 44:14 49:24 55:11 56:23 69:12 72:10 78:3 80:2,11 comfort 19:13 29:14 comfortable 68:12 coming 53:6 comment 22:12 commissioned 68:7 commitment 72:12 common 32:17 38:12 52:10 62:16 community 42:18 67:8 comparing 79:1 compelling 8:20 28:24 32:8 34:18 46:10,11 47:5 59:21 65:3 71:3 competes 65:9 competitors 60:6 complaining 57:14 complaint 4:18 56:17 73:12 74:6 75:3
complete 70:7 completed 75:14 component 79:15 composition 17:11 65:13 70:16 concept 15:22 15:23 49:4 77:14 concern 65:6,8 concerned 14:19 24:16 75:21 concessions 51:20 conclude 38:5 concluded 38:10 50:9 conclusion 70:25 72:2 82:3 conduct 47:13 conducted 39:7 confer 55:20 confused 21:16 confusion 80:17 connected 12:24 consequences 25:10 consequent 3:17 consider 29:6 49:11 55:7 57:11 71:1 77:7 consideration 12:12,13 19:22 51:20 54:21 59:21 63:5 65:11 66:20 81:5 considerations 31:18 35:21 41:20 considered 5:13 62:1 70:15 71:1 73:10 considering
86
13:2 constantly 15:16 15:16 Constitutional 4:6,8,23 6:5 31:14 47:18 contention 7:11 7:17 context 10:17 60:15 70:19 contextual 40:5 contextualize 30:18 contextually 65:22 contingent 6:17 continue 28:18 60:1 contract 7:5 contracting 7:2 8:2 contracts 56:8 contrary 79:23 contribute 62:3 66:21 control 60:19 core 60:2 corporate 44:5 Corps 69:12 corralled 78:18 correct 5:6,10 5:11 7:9 14:2 21:13 25:1,5 65:24 67:5 correspondence 31:2 cost 75:8 counsel 29:16 32:11 46:3 59:7 82:9,10 counterpart 32:5 country 8:15 44:7 52:12 59:23 72:6 counts 44:25 45:1
couple 41:6 course 5:22 36:10 47:3 50:25 53:4 courses 24:14 25:4 court 1:1,13 3:4 3:12,13,23 4:5 4:23 7:13,19 9:18 13:3,16 15:16 16:18 17:1,10 27:18 31:12,19,20 35:2,6,7 39:19 39:24,24 40:8 41:25 44:15 45:14 50:11 56:19,22 58:7 59:14 63:17,19 66:9 70:7,11 70:13 71:8 74:17 75:11 courts 12:9,19 12:21,23 14:2 47:8 63:17 Court's 8:18 31:15 46:17 50:21 70:23 cover 54:3,10,13 66:7 create 69:7 created 27:24 creating 71:12 creeds 72:11 criteria 30:13 39:23 48:17,21 51:14 critical 9:1 10:11,15 13:9 13:13,19 14:3 14:5,11,15 16:10,25 18:12 18:25 19:6,8 19:13 20:11,16 27:10 28:8 34:9 35:11 39:16 40:2,9
55:13 56:7 deem 76:5 defective 28:16 deference 70:8 deferred 82:5 deferring 49:15 deficiencies 81:4 defined 18:17 19:13 definition 20:11 20:13 definitively 54:20 degrees 44:8 demographic 15:6,6 29:10 49:5,6 53:25 demographics 14:14,18,20 demonstrated D 61:8 D 3:1 denial 3:17 6:4 Dallas 44:1 7:8 damage 4:7 denied 4:6,19 damages 5:20 7:25 8:1 6:3,6,15,17,25 department 7:19,20 55:16 1:21 58:14 56:5,12,17,18 77:1 73:16,19,23 departments 74:18,21 77:8 data 43:6 47:24 depend 27:6,6 48:22 63:4 day 11:17 depended 8:16 deal 24:17 30:2 dependent 80:25 40:16 decades 17:3 depends 30:22 decide 34:8 35:1 68:10 48:13 69:24 describe 61:25 decided 78:21 desegregation deciding 36:3,20 17:2 decision 11:9,15 deserve 44:9 16:2 30:6 60:9 45:14 52:20 designation 53:3 decisions 61:2 desire 5:8 declaration desired 62:4 11:12 determination declaratory 32:17,21 33:22
40:15 41:1 46:11,13,17,20 47:1 48:4,6,9 49:4 52:6,14 52:18 53:3 69:17,18,19 70:1 71:14,23 71:24 75:24 76:10,19 77:11 80:6,20 cross 76:2 cross-racial 50:5 cultures 72:12 curiae 1:22 2:10 59:11 curiosity 58:11 curious 58:11 cut 68:15
38:3 39:9 47:8 47:18 76:9 determinations 80:20 determinative 76:3 determine 6:24 17:8 46:9 determined 17:12 determining 35:11 63:25 64:2 develop 73:23 74:17 develops 69:8,9 devote 68:2 dialogue 76:10 79:23 dictating 26:11 difference 19:10 23:16 63:21,22 63:24 64:5,6 64:10,14,18 66:10,13,14 80:23 differences 45:15 75:8 different 4:22 5:15 12:17 21:3 29:18 30:8 32:14 33:11 40:9 42:2 43:18 44:21 45:2,7 45:22 46:2 50:10 72:11,11 72:11 75:6 77:7,12 78:4 78:21,24,25 differentiated 77:1 differently 29:18 60:12 dimension 34:20 directly 4:8 19:2 22:7 25:21
87
60:15 61:2 disadvantage 79:25 disadvantaged 44:23 disagree 62:14 disagreed 51:9 discernible 75:24 disclaimed 5:7 discovered 57:18 discriminated 7:3 discrimination 7:2 discussing 35:22 46:5 disparate 30:20 dispel 42:22 disposition 8:19 disputed 43:10 disregard 25:10 dissent 53:19 65:7 71:11 disservice 45:16 distinction 29:9 distinguish 19:19 district 17:1,10 63:19 66:9 74:17 diverse 8:21 22:17 30:2 32:9 35:1 60:5 60:6 68:11,12 69:10 diversifying 17:15 diversity 17:13 18:25 34:18,20 34:20,25 35:9 36:13,25 37:4 37:5,13 39:6 40:21 41:5,9 41:17,18 42:12 42:15 47:5
48:23 50:6 51:21 52:3,4 59:20 60:18,20 62:4 69:6 70:9 70:17 75:19 77:8,13 doing 20:1 28:25 28:25 30:24 78:12 80:10 DONALD 1:20 2:9 59:10 doubled 52:1 doubt 56:17 drawbacks 32:6 dropped 41:12 48:1 D.C 1:9,16,18 1:21 E E 2:1 3:1,1 earlier 66:24 earners 44:7 easy 25:3 57:16 economic 67:8 Economics 36:20 education 11:21 25:3 44:11 76:14,16 77:1 educational 17:12,14 35:9 40:21 41:19 42:15 50:6 59:5 61:3 69:5 70:10 71:2 72:8 76:11 79:2 educators 48:16 effective 28:2 60:4,4,5 effectiveness 68:10 effort 8:15 13:8 either 28:20 34:23 71:15 element 27:11
30:17 emphasis 27:11 27:12 encountered 8:22 encouraging 25:18 English 67:11 enormous 52:16 80:17 enrollees 71:5 enrolling 25:18 enrollment 9:20 24:7 35:22 41:12 47:24,25 48:22 51:22 ensuring 60:2 entered 73:9 entering 38:16 entire 20:21 entirely 20:17 29:24,24 62:6 79:11 entitled 5:21 environment 30:2 42:18 46:18 48:10,13 50:1,4,5,9 67:3 69:7 environments 35:9 72:8 equal 3:17,18 4:6 6:5 7:8 18:10 61:21 82:7 equalize 17:2 erroneous 37:15 ESQ 1:16,18,20 2:3,6,9,13 essays 27:12 essence 56:22 essentially 18:10 establish 8:21 13:8 17:7 18:11 55:9 79:1 establishing
50:16 estimation 13:24 ET 1:7 etcetera 57:20 ethnic 60:18 ethnically 30:8 evaluate 19:14 evaluating 66:22 evaluation 19:5 56:1 63:21 everybody 35:17 evidence 11:2 17:22 evidently 11:6 exactly 32:12 64:22 71:10 80:21 examine 10:17 27:19 example 38:11 43:25 44:13 45:14 47:24 61:3 excess 29:12 excluded 23:2 excludes 22:11 exclusive 9:18 exclusively 55:18 76:4 Excuse 22:23 24:23 81:18 exercising 68:12 existence 64:20 expected 72:23 experience 42:9 47:10 53:2 58:24 59:5 67:8 72:8 experiences 42:7 45:2,7,23 experiencing 39:13 expire 68:18 explain 10:8
36:2 39:4 40:25 68:3 explicitly 56:19 expressly 16:14 extend 25:12 extension 23:25 extent 30:22 62:2 80:15 F fact 4:25 6:17 10:6 13:18,22 18:2 22:3 35:8 51:24 73:10 74:2 79:24 factor 3:17 12:14 14:20 30:10,23 31:17 34:23 44:19 49:10 62:19 63:20,25 64:3 64:24 65:11 77:10 factors 4:21 10:17 27:12,24 30:4,6 42:19 54:3,5,10 65:19,21 70:22 81:8 facts 12:24 13:5 13:6 21:2 49:8 61:19 factual 43:4 fail 11:3 28:20 failed 29:3 failing 45:14 fails 28:13 fair 7:25 43:21 74:12 79:11 fairly 57:5 fairness 17:19 fall 52:15 54:24 fallen 55:14 falls 61:12 family's 67:8,9 fashion 81:8 Faulkner 11:12
88
faulty 43:23 feature 62:16 Federal 26:11 56:21 80:25 fee 55:21 57:4 57:10,13 74:7 74:11 feedback 47:9 48:22 feel 10:19 14:22 47:10,13 48:14 50:3 feeling 10:24 feels 15:7 fees 55:19 56:19 fencer 61:5 field 72:25 73:2 Fifth 25:9 figure 21:16 32:12 34:11 35:18 79:12 figures 25:21 filed 58:6 74:7 75:3 Filipino 52:6 fill 76:4 financial 75:1 find 14:2 29:13 38:4 57:18 80:23 finding 39:10 findings 63:16 fine 35:13 64:2 firm 44:4 first 3:21 4:4,22 7:10 10:9,13 19:3 22:5,8 28:23 29:2 31:15 35:4 37:14 40:7 41:7 44:13 51:19 54:20 73:5 Fisher 1:3 3:6 3:19 54:23 73:3 Fisher's 82:7
fit 18:15 20:6,14 30:24 77:19 fixed 17:4,5,24 40:1 76:3 flags 76:8 flaw 13:14 flaws 9:24 flexibility 72:7 flies 8:10 focus 20:20 59:16 72:1 focused 55:18 78:8 follows 20:7 75:16 footnote 5:2 7:13 55:6,8 73:8 forbidden 29:11 forced 55:25 forget 20:20,24 form 34:2 36:15 36:20 52:10,11 forms 20:7 forth 49:24 73:5 forward-looki... 56:6 foster 30:1 found 12:9 37:22 63:19 66:9 foundation 30:25 framework 10:13 15:20 free 13:3 freedom 72:12 freshman 67:1 friend 35:5 47:4 54:16 56:11,11 69:19 friends 40:7 friend's 51:19 full 73:23 fully 28:6 function 63:15 functions 63:13
fundamental 54:19 further 37:5 61:2 71:2
67:15,17,21 68:5,9,16 69:2 69:5,15,18 70:2,5 71:16 71:19,23 72:4 G 72:18 75:18 G 1:18 2:6 3:1 generally 23:9 31:9 60:24 game 51:13 generate 13:13 Garre 1:18 2:6 18:12 31:8,9,11 32:2 generated 27:3 32:15,23 33:2 generating 33:9,15,21 10:14 18:2 34:1,5,16 35:2 20:25 35:15,20,25 generation 22:2 36:5,10,16,22 generator 21:10 37:14,18,21 24:1 38:2,18,21,25 Gentlemen 39:3,18,23 67:19 40:5,14,18,20 getting 30:11,12 40:24 41:6,24 Ginsburg 3:22 42:7,14 43:3 4:4 9:15 10:3 44:12,20 45:1 20:15 21:4,24 45:6,12,21 23:22 24:3,9 46:4,16,22 24:18 40:24 47:2,15,19,23 51:3,10,16 48:5,10,15,20 64:16,23 78:19 49:3,13,23 give 6:13 54:15 50:15,20 51:3 54:16 62:10 51:3,8,10,15 79:24 51:19 52:8,10 given 12:15 52:17,25 53:7 17:21 35:4 53:10,14,18,23 61:12 62:12,12 54:5,12,18 gives 30:20 55:4,10 56:2 giving 30:3 56:14 57:6 global 60:6 58:4,21 59:1,3 go 5:4,8 11:1 59:8 60:8 24:12,13 26:17 gauge 36:13 29:5 36:3,13 80:5 36:14,19 44:22 General 1:20 56:8,16 63:9 3:11 59:9,13 68:19,23 70:13 60:11 61:17,22 75:11,13 78:9 62:8,14,23 78:14 80:19,19 63:3,12 64:5 80:21 64:11,13,22 goal 17:13 19:16 65:15,24 66:12 39:22 49:6
goals 20:1 71:2 goes 11:19 29:23 55:12 78:8 going 5:20 8:6 9:10 11:13 14:17 17:4 19:21 23:14 26:8,9 27:15 32:3 42:9,20 45:7,8 48:16 49:20 50:14,25 54:16 56:8 60:4,13,14 63:4 64:18 66:20 71:6 75:5 77:6 78:2 78:2 79:3 good 8:9 25:3 48:19 gotten 7:5,12 government 67:2 72:6 GPA 67:6 grades 67:7 graduate 4:19 44:8 graduated 5:5 5:17,18 graduates 60:3 graduation 70:18 grant 60:25 gratuitously 10:10 great 76:7 greater 17:12 Greek 61:7 green 75:23 78:14 GREGORY 1:18 2:6 31:9 grew 42:8 grounds 17:18 group 40:3,3 41:25 42:3 45:22,24 52:16 62:18
89
groups 40:10 41:10 61:12 Grutter 8:8,8,19 9:3,13,22,24 10:6,9,13,18 11:15,19,20,25 12:6,16,17 13:12,15 14:25 15:20 16:12,12 16:13,15,18,21 17:13 18:17,19 19:13,16,25 20:7,13 21:2,2 23:19 26:3,9 31:19,24 33:11 35:2,5,7 39:19 39:24,24 40:23 44:15 46:23 47:3 49:24 50:16,19,20 51:5,5 52:20 53:13,17,24 58:7 64:19 65:6,7 71:2,11 75:15,20 76:6 76:6,24 78:18 80:13,19 81:10 81:17 82:3 Grutter's 19:1 59:18 78:13 Grutter-type 57:19 guarantee 41:18 guided 50:21 gut 81:17,19,20 82:2 H half 26:2 happen 77:16 happened 17:3 26:15 53:13 happens 76:17 77:5 happy 23:14 26:24 hard 55:8
harder 71:6 Harvard 31:20 33:12 41:25 44:14 46:6 78:20,24 hear 17:23 heard 64:1 hearing 69:22 heavily 24:10 held 11:20 15:16 44:16 help 42:21 43:16 80:22 helpful 71:25 helps 43:11 51:21 high 41:16 higher 11:21 21:19 71:5 highly 78:15 Hispanic 32:13 32:14,20,22 33:7,8,8,19 34:14 35:18 44:19 51:21 60:8 61:6 76:18 Hispanics 21:20 29:8,15 36:21 37:8 39:11,17 43:21,24 50:3 51:25 history 70:20,20 holding 11:24 holdings 13:18 holds 50:12 holistic 32:4 38:4,8 39:7 42:19 43:8 54:2,5,10 60:22 62:17 63:5 64:1 65:11 76:23 77:22 holistically 62:3 home 67:10,11 honor 5:12
32:15,24 33:2 33:3,5,7,10,15 33:21 34:5,16 35:3,15,20,25 36:5,10,16,23 37:14,22 38:2 38:18,21,25 39:3,18 40:6 41:7,24 42:14 43:3,5 44:12 44:20 45:1,6 45:22 46:16 47:2,19 48:15 48:20 49:3 50:15,20 51:15 52:8,17 53:7 53:14,18 55:4 55:12 56:14 57:10 58:4,21 59:4,8 Honors 45:12 72:5 hope 22:13 Hopwood 22:5,7 25:22,25 huge 19:9 hundreds 26:10 hurt 23:8 hydraulic 71:12 hypothesize 65:23 hypothetical 62:6,12 67:23 77:3 79:10
identify 33:8 46:11 53:2 66:24 ignored 13:10 ignores 30:19 III 55:3 ill-advised 69:20 ill-defined 28:15 immediately 11:15 18:8 impact 52:2 68:22 impacts 42:15 implementation 28:15 64:25 65:2,5 implicates 47:3 important 19:10 19:19 35:3,8 39:10 52:2 59:4,15 68:6 72:5 impose 23:8 imposed 24:24 25:4 impossible 65:17 improve 58:23 79:23 improving 59:5 inadequate 24:17 inappropriate 28:14 incidentally I 43:1 idea 58:15 71:24 incidents 70:21 ideal 79:2 included 42:25 identical 62:21 includes 17:14 65:18,19,23 23:25 76:16 67:13 income 44:6,11 identifiable incomprehens... 41:16 29:8 identification inconsistency 33:14 23:4 identified 36:9 incorrect 53:17 71:3,11 72:9 61:19,20
increase 9:19 14:9,12 24:6 27:1 37:13 51:25 increased 51:21 increasing 27:9 increasingly 60:5 independent 30:10,15 70:12 70:13 index 22:9,10 78:6 indisputably 14:7 32:7 63:20 indistinguisha... 31:15 individual 12:13 29:14 34:25 66:15,16,20 individualized 12:11 20:3 31:17 61:1 63:5 65:11,25 66:19 78:25 79:4 individually 79:6 individuals 37:20 42:3,4 49:11 61:4 79:1 inferior 68:25 information 36:22 37:1 50:10 57:22 70:14,15,16,17 70:18,25 infrequent 79:15 injunctive 5:19 55:13 56:7 73:13,21 74:3 injured 54:21 injuries 75:2 injury 3:24,25
90
4:2,5,7,10,13 4:23 5:25,25 6:5 8:3 23:8 55:24 56:3,20 56:25,25 57:10 57:13 inquiry 65:1 72:1 instituted 24:6 insulting 15:3 integrated 42:17 intended 76:6,7 interchange 76:11 interest 8:20,24 9:1 10:11 15:15,17 28:24 32:7,8,10 34:18 46:10,11 47:6 59:21,25 60:2 65:3 71:3 75:19 76:10,11 interested 9:9 68:20 interests 46:5,6 78:1 interviewed 11:6 introduced 26:3 invariably 64:6 invasion 82:6 involved 7:16 28:7 51:12 56:6 72:10 involving 7:1 isolated 10:24 14:21,21 15:8 15:10,24 16:11 16:16 47:14 48:14 isolating 21:23 21:24 isolation 10:19 11:7 37:23 39:13 47:9 issue 3:14 4:8 5:22 6:24 7:10
8:19 32:4 33:10 37:25 38:7 39:8 49:14 59:17 75:13 issued 75:18 issues 29:21 56:11,12 Ivy 33:16,16 58:5,6 J Jacksonville 55:24 56:5 job 27:18,19 46:8,14 58:19 75:6 join 78:2 Joint 36:1 49:7 51:22 54:22 55:17 61:25 JR 1:20 2:9 59:10 judges 26:11 80:25 judgment 4:17 13:25 17:12 48:16 49:16,22 70:8,12,13 judgments 65:25 judicial 80:8 jurisdiction 52:22 54:14,19 55:9 56:15 Justice 1:21 3:3 3:5,10,12,22 4:4,9,12 5:4,7 5:17,19,24 6:2 6:9,12,15,25 7:1,7,14,23 8:4 8:6,13,17 9:2,7 9:12,15 10:3 10:21 11:8,14 11:18,19,24 12:2,22 13:5 13:17,21,24
14:1,4,16 15:2 15:4,12,14,19 16:8,16,24 17:9,19,21 18:4,6,14,21 19:7,15,18,24 20:9,15 21:4 21:11,15,23 22:12,14,22,23 22:24 23:4,7 23:22 24:3,9 24:18,23 25:2 25:6,19 26:5 26:14,15,18,21 27:4,15,22 28:5,11,19 29:16 31:3,4,8 31:11,22 32:11 32:19,25 33:6 33:13,18,24 34:3,8,22 35:13,16,23 36:2,7,14,18 37:3,17,20,24 38:14,19,23 39:1,15,20 40:2,11,15,19 40:24 41:22 42:5,11,24 43:15 44:15,17 44:24 45:3,5,9 45:17 46:3,8 46:19,23 47:12 47:17,21 48:3 48:8,12,18,25 49:13,25 50:12 50:18 51:2,3,4 51:10,16 52:4 52:9,14,23 53:1,9,12,16 53:21 54:1,8 54:15 55:1,5 55:23 56:10,24 57:3,7,15 58:10,25 59:2 59:7,9,13,19 60:7,12 61:9
L laid 50:10 language 20:13 languages 67:10 large 16:1 34:10 43:12 58:18 Latino 29:24 Laughter 8:12 26:23 67:16 71:22 law 8:9 10:1 25:4,11 32:5,7 44:4 82:7 K lawyer 44:6 keep 79:6 lays 46:7 keeping 72:24 lead 69:9 Kennedy 21:11 leaders 60:4 22:12,22,23,24 leadership 30:9 23:4,7 28:5,11 30:10,13 42:18 28:19 44:24 67:7 68:12 45:3,9,17 69:14 52:23 53:1,9 Leagues 33:16 53:12,16,21 33:17 58:5,6 63:6,14 65:6 legal 13:3 71:11 72:9 legitimacy 8:24 key 14:14 49:8 legitimate 8:20 64:8 66:12 leg-up 44:9 kind 13:21 Lesage 4:10,11 35:23,24 42:5 4:15,16 6:10 42:20,24 50:16 6:20 56:2 70:14 71:10 let's 9:16 22:22 78:16 38:15 44:3,9 kinds 62:17 75:1 level 19:12 48:3 76:8 48:9 70:9
61:18 62:5,9 62:12,15,20,24 63:6,14,15 64:9,12,15,16 64:23 65:6,15 65:17 66:2,4 66:13,24 67:4 67:5,19,22 68:6,14,17 69:2,3,15,22 70:3,4 71:11 71:13,17,20 72:3,9,18,22 72:24 73:2,12 73:18,24 74:1 74:8,20,23 75:5,14 76:12 76:23 77:4,20 78:11,19,21 79:8,10 80:3 80:12,18 81:16 81:19,23 82:1 82:9 justify 52:5 59:21
know 8:7,9 9:10 10:18 12:16 17:1 18:10,22 24:20 33:18 34:9,22 38:15 38:19 39:3 46:19,20,25 51:8 58:1,12 58:16 69:23 71:14 75:13,25 78:13 80:7 knows 36:11
91
72:25 73:2 levels 28:14 29:14 library 57:21 life 71:24 light 66:15,17 75:23 78:14 limited 12:4,11 73:13,14 limits 19:1 line 49:17 lines 42:22 76:2 listed 12:18 54:7 lists 36:6,6,8 litigated 4:15 9:5 litigation 40:8 little 23:9 26:1,6 26:19 33:16 37:9 54:16,17 58:5 live 7:20 55:15 lives 42:9 logical 46:24,25 long 15:10 76:2 look 20:23 22:8 23:20 25:16,21 28:7 34:24 35:14 38:2 39:5,23 41:14 43:5 47:7,8,23 48:17,21 49:25 50:22 61:3,7 70:14 79:4 80:19,21 81:3 looked 14:20 16:20,20 25:22 34:19 35:12 37:2 38:11 41:7,9 42:19 47:16,20 48:21 52:17 looking 12:7 14:5 15:21 26:12 27:2 37:21 40:20 50:17,23,24
60:24,25 66:18 46:12,13,17,21 77:21,22 47:1 48:4,6,9 looks 34:12,13 49:4 52:6,15 34:13,13,14 52:18 53:4 35:18 41:17 69:17,19 70:1 loses 63:2 71:14,14,18,24 loss 22:6 71:24 75:24 lot 24:19 26:1,5 76:10,19 77:11 29:10 58:16 80:6,20 64:1 68:2 mastered 61:6 69:23 73:5 matter 1:12 4:1 lots 27:14 43:20 7:14,15 9:25 43:21 25:11 54:24 lottery 8:1,2 55:21 59:6 Louisville 7:18 62:20,21 74:9 low-performing 81:11 82:13 24:13 mean 13:14 15:9 LSU 75:9 20:5 24:5,11 LUAC 45:13 32:12 34:23 lumping 40:9 42:6,12 45:13 52:5 49:4 62:11,25 62:25 78:23 M meaning 76:4 major 21:9 24:1 meaningful 30:25 77:12 63:20 78:3,3 means 12:12 majority 53:24 16:23 19:6 majors 78:4,10 28:23 40:22 makeup 15:6 62:10 making 23:16 meant 40:23 70:13 measure 5:20 mandate 3:18 23:15 27:13 82:4 29:10,11 30:8 manufacture 77:22 74:2 mechanical marginal 61:13 64:24 65:10,19 68:18 medical 7:12 markets 60:6 meet 71:6 mass 9:1 10:11 meets 65:5 10:15 13:9,13 member 15:21 13:19 14:3,5 members 3:12 14:11,15 16:10 10:19 37:25 16:25 18:12 41:3 45:15,18 19:1,6,8,13 45:21 50:2,4 20:11,16 34:9 mention 12:25 35:12 39:16 mere 4:12 40:2,9,15 merely 6:22
merits 4:16 7:15 8:7 73:7 met 3:19 50:9 method 12:21 Mexico 49:1 military 64:20 68:3,9,22,25 69:14 78:22 minimal 27:7 minorities 14:24 16:4,7 18:12 20:18 21:8,10 22:11,18,25 25:17 30:21 36:4 37:25 39:11 43:12 44:21,22 48:14 50:2 52:19 77:15 79:20,22 minority 9:19 10:19,22 15:22 16:11,19,22 18:3 20:25 22:2 24:1,6,21 33:20 37:16 40:10 41:3 42:16 43:12 46:12 51:22 62:13 63:1 64:7 71:5 76:13 77:5,23 minute 20:24 minutes 9:8 35:4 72:19 misreading 78:17 mission 61:3 70:10 79:3 mistake 14:24 modest 10:6 31:17 49:10 monetary 55:16 56:5,18 money 57:8 monitor 54:2 58:16,22 65:13 monitoring
53:10,24 move 18:10 moving 8:20 multiracial 32:16 N N 2:1,1 3:1 narrow 18:16,17 19:3 29:5 31:23 65:1 81:14,15 narrowly 20:6 30:19 31:23 39:21 46:10 69:25 Nation's 60:3 nature 77:3 necessarily 7:24 15:23 64:14 67:15 necessary 8:25 11:2 13:15 17:25 18:24 22:16 28:18,23 30:18 32:4 45:4,4 49:16 necessity 18:16 28:25 31:24,25 81:3,6 need 9:10 17:18 18:21,22 20:19 31:25 32:12 51:17 needed 17:22 needs 60:15 70:9 71:1 77:7 78:18 81:3 neither 67:18,21 never 5:1 13:11 24:21 29:22 34:17 73:23 75:14 77:14 New 49:1 nine 8:10 NOEL 1:3 nominal 74:20
92
nondiverse 31:1 non-top 21:7,24 37:4,24 normal 13:17 notion 39:25 nuclear 77:23 number 3:6 14:5 16:1,19 17:4,5 17:7 18:3 36:21 37:7,15 38:15,20 39:15 41:3 43:21 58:1,18 59:3 69:20 71:4,7,9 71:12 74:5 81:24 numbers 10:23 21:14 26:16 29:18 32:12 39:12 41:8,8,9 57:17 58:2,5 60:18 71:15 number's 17:24 numerical 53:2 53:3,3,6 69:21 nutshell 29:2 O O 2:1 3:1 objective 28:14 obligation 55:7 obvious 35:7 Obviously 58:5 October 1:10 odds 79:25 odious 81:13 officer 68:25 69:12 officers 26:7 53:5 57:21 68:7 offset 32:6 oh 23:1 35:18 36:14 68:14 70:4 okay 12:22 13:5 24:4 26:5
28:22 41:17 47:21 64:12 69:22 76:5 once 50:23,24 51:16 81:24 ones 12:18 79:21 one-eighth 33:1 33:7 one-quarter 32:13,20,21 ongoing 65:13 operates 31:16 operative 19:19 opinion 7:14 12:17 16:9,10 16:13 49:25 59:20 63:18 opportunity 35:5 73:23 opposite 45:13 opposition 55:11 option 24:25 25:14 oral 1:12 2:2,5,8 3:8 31:9 59:10 order 10:9 29:3 77:19 origin 52:12 ostensibly 16:2 ought 15:1 70:11 outcomes 28:9 outside 20:23 21:1 42:4 overriding 31:13 overrule 8:8,14 35:6 81:9,17 81:20 overturn 12:24 overwhelmingly 10:23 overwhelms 27:23 28:1 P
P 3:1 page 2:2 43:6 49:6 51:22 53:8 55:17 61:24 63:18 pages 54:22 PAI 27:10,13 29:19 30:11,16 79:12,13,15,17 paid 55:20 57:11 74:8,10,11 75:9,9 paper 41:17 parents 7:16 28:7 44:3,8,10 51:12 61:11 72:10 part 4:7 23:11 33:4 36:16 37:4,8 41:13 41:14 44:5 48:15 55:10,25 56:24 59:4 participation 8:2 participatory 38:13 particular 17:3 34:11 45:25 48:14 66:15,16 76:15 particularly 13:1 partner 44:4 PAS 30:17 79:14 passed 8:11 pay 57:3 payment 57:9 57:12 people 8:15 22:18 25:3 26:10 29:22 34:6 45:25 46:1 56:7 58:13,16,18,25 59:4 61:7 66:2 72:10 78:9
79:7,13 perceived 78:13 percent 9:16,18 9:21 10:1 14:8 14:9,9,10,12 15:9,10 16:3,5 16:7,22 20:17 20:18,20,25 21:5,7,7,16,17 21:18,19,22,25 23:23,25 24:2 24:6,13,15,23 25:7,13,22,24 25:25 26:2,2,3 32:5,20,21 33:19,20 37:4 37:25 38:12,20 40:8 41:2,4,12 41:15,16 42:25 43:1,20 44:7 48:1,6,25 49:2 51:17 53:4 58:20 60:17,21 65:20 68:8 69:12 76:19 77:15 percentage 16:3 25:17 38:5 40:1 43:8,11 48:2 perfect 72:13 perfectly 26:24 period 52:1 permissible 15:15,17 permits 76:24 permitted 5:9 person 4:1 7:3 8:1 15:21 32:20 35:18 67:14 Personal 22:10 persons 34:1 perspective 46:1 perspectives 46:2 per-class 37:18
Petitioner 1:4 1:17 2:4,14 3:9 59:18 63:18 65:4 72:21 physical 76:14 76:15 77:1 physics 78:3 PIA 65:21 pinpoint 12:4,5 pipeline 68:10 place 28:3,4 57:22 plaintiff 56:21 plaintiffs 7:18 plan 9:17,22 20:20,21 21:12 21:17,18 22:16 23:23,25 24:6 24:13,24 25:22 28:13,20 30:3 31:14,21 33:11 33:12 37:5,9 38:7,20 39:21 41:15,25 43:8 43:8,11,20 44:14 46:6 48:2 60:17 61:15 64:17 65:5,20 68:8,8 78:20,24,25 plans 31:19,19 58:9 platonic 79:2 play 61:4 playing 72:25 73:2 please 3:4,13 31:12 59:14 plus 30:3,5 44:19 62:18 point 6:23 9:3 16:25 23:10 28:12 30:11,12 32:3 43:5,10 44:20 46:24,25 49:15 50:24 51:11,19,24
93
52:21 54:14 62:8 63:7 64:23 67:18 69:5,6 73:3,16 74:6,14 75:24 79:6 80:4,9 81:1,3 82:4 pointed 29:7 53:19 73:6 75:1 points 29:25 37:1 41:7 50:10 54:7 76:3 79:24 policies 59:24 64:20 policy 26:11 55:21 72:15 political 42:6 population 14:10 29:13 40:17 49:2 posited 64:15 position 15:13 29:20 61:14 68:24 possibly 37:12 post-Grutter 14:8 pot 15:3 potential 66:16 Powell 44:15 78:21 Powell's 7:14 49:25 59:19 precedence 50:21 precedents 31:15 46:9,14 46:17 precisely 12:16 42:20 52:19 59:16 predicate 13:12 predominant 12:14 preference
60:10 61:1,13 61:23 62:10,18 62:25 63:4 78:8 premise 4:25 7:10 73:8 premised 4:7 78:5 presence 18:3 22:3 present 39:11 president 11:12 29:25 30:7 pressure 71:12 presume 29:23 pretty 25:24 prevented 31:5 Pre-Grutter 14:6 27:3 58:2 principally 66:19 principle 13:16 59:19,24 72:9 privilege 61:1 privileged 43:24 45:10,18,19 60:9 probably 23:2 68:23 71:13 problem 8:22 19:23 22:20 30:24 53:20 54:19 60:19 71:10 problems 53:11 77:13 process 32:4 39:8 45:24 53:5 55:25 56:13 57:4,19 60:13,22 62:1 65:12 processing 74:12 produce 60:3,18 produces 41:18 producing 10:11
professionals 44:1 program 4:3,19 5:9,13,14 10:1 10:5 17:14 22:9 58:12 68:7 73:11 76:14,16 77:6 80:5 81:7 programs 80:25 progressed 74:19 promoted 50:5 prong 18:16 29:3 31:24,25 31:25 proof 17:16 proper 14:25 16:10 properly 9:13 12:6 80:13 proposal 30:25 protection 3:18 7:8 61:21 82:7 prove 6:19,21 6:21 7:4 17:19 56:16 proved 17:18 proven 30:1 prudent 71:8 public 57:23 58:2 purely 80:2 purpose 18:11 18:20 43:16 64:4 purposes 53:25 pursuing 28:23 49:6 put 18:23,23 19:1,11 27:11 31:22 75:3 puts 44:6 putting 14:16 p.m 82:12 Q
qualifications 27:17 qualified 37:7 quarrel 14:17 quest 18:25 question 3:24 4:16 6:15 7:21 9:2,10 10:4,13 10:16 11:20 12:3 13:3,8,12 17:20 19:2 22:14,21 23:12 23:19 26:19,25 27:25 28:6,8 36:19 39:4 40:12 41:1 44:13,18 45:5 47:2 54:9 65:17 67:25 75:20 77:14,18 79:9 80:3 questionable 78:15 questions 31:5 40:13 58:11 75:10 78:24 quick 52:21 quite 4:22 quota 12:10 19:8,16,25 49:19,20 65:9 76:4 quotas 11:10 20:2 76:3,3 quote 81:9 R R 3:1 race 3:16 4:13 6:19 7:4 8:21 8:25 10:10,14 12:13 13:13 16:2 18:15,18 19:21 22:7 23:15 27:6,7 27:23,23 28:4 29:1,20 30:4,5
30:12,15 31:16 33:23 36:8,23 38:8 44:25 45:10,10,11,13 45:16,19,20 46:9,24 47:11 49:9,10,16 50:4 51:20 54:2,9,21,25 57:12 58:17 59:6,22 62:1 63:8,11,19,23 63:25 64:3 65:10 66:5,7 66:10,21 67:12 67:14 68:20 69:25 71:1 75:23 76:8,9 76:20 78:14,14 78:16,22 79:13 80:2 81:25 82:4,5 races 29:18 72:11 race-conscious 22:16 56:1 race-neutral 12:12 23:17,23 23:24 24:4 28:6 30:13 racial 11:10 15:11,14 33:14 39:13,13 41:9 42:3,12,21,22 45:22,23 47:9 48:24 51:14,21 58:12,22 61:4 62:10,24 63:3 65:13 70:21 racially 41:16 47:13 69:9 racially-identi... 43:14 raise 3:23 71:9 raised 5:2 7:11 65:7 raises 76:8
94
random 11:4 range 19:5,11 19:20 ranges 24:2 rates 70:18 ratio 16:6 reach 50:24 81:24 82:2 reached 14:11 35:11 46:20 47:1 50:1 76:19 reaching 45:18 53:25 read 9:14 50:15 75:23 80:19 readily 28:9 reading 22:19 63:17 reaffirmation 59:19 real 52:2 reality 72:9 realized 35:10 50:7 really 24:5 25:24 38:14 73:6 76:9 78:15 81:11 reason 16:17 24:5 45:17 50:8 55:19 56:15 57:6,9 reasonably 23:12,17 81:5 reasons 31:13 66:24 rebuttal 2:12 31:5 72:20 receive 74:13 receives 12:13 recognize 75:17 75:21 recognized 4:24 35:7 42:1 58:7 record 6:22 24:20 27:6
61:8 recruit 44:22 red 76:8 redress 57:10 redressability 56:22 reduced 75:25 refuse 80:7 Rein 1:16 2:3,13 3:3,8,10,22 4:4 4:11,15 5:6,11 5:18,22 6:1,4 6:11,14,16 7:6 7:9 8:4,17 9:5 9:12,23 10:7 11:4,11,16,23 12:1,20 13:1,7 13:20,23 14:1 14:13,23 15:11 15:14 16:14,18 17:6,17 18:1,5 18:8,20,23 19:9,18 20:5,9 20:12,15,22 21:6,13,18 22:21,23 23:3 23:6,11,24 24:8,18 25:1,5 25:9 26:4,14 26:18,24 27:5 27:18,25 28:17 28:22 30:5 31:7 57:2,9 72:19,20,22 73:1,15,22,25 74:5,11,22,25 75:7 76:21,25 77:9,25 78:23 81:2,18,22 82:1 reinstitute 11:10 16:2 reiterated 20:12 rejected 5:13 39:25 rejection 3:25 relate 30:23
relates 73:7 79:8 relative 67:11 release 55:13 56:7 relied 59:23 relief 5:19 55:12 55:13 56:20 73:13,21 74:3 reluctant 12:23 relying 20:17 remained 41:11 remand 6:16 56:13 remedial 56:11 remedy 56:20 57:13 remember 77:10 reported 11:5 reporting 14:22 representative 45:19 representatives 42:2 request 55:14,16 55:17,18 56:18 56:18 requested 55:12 require 17:16 35:17 required 7:3 12:16 18:18 requirement 48:9 56:23 65:5 requires 80:14 reserve 26:19 reserved 5:23 74:18 75:10 reserving 31:6 resolving 59:15 resort 18:25 29:1,2 respect 7:17 28:19 29:4 43:4 60:13,20 61:10 64:7,25
65:1 66:19 respects 62:7,22 respond 15:19 Respondents 1:19,22 2:7,11 31:10 59:12 response 21:23 22:4,8 45:4 responsibility 18:9 67:10 69:24 restate 13:16 81:12 result 41:4 81:8 resulted 22:24 retention 70:18 return 55:18 73:13,21 74:12 review 42:19 47:8 50:11 reviewed 76:1 reweighting 27:10 right 6:4 9:8 15:13 16:16 18:14 24:2 32:2 38:16,24 50:13 54:4 55:6 61:24 62:8,23 64:23 66:6,11 67:4 68:16 74:18 80:11 81:1 rightly 49:18 rights 82:7 rigidly 20:20 ROBERTS 3:5 21:15 31:4,8 32:11,19,25 33:6,13,18,24 36:7,14,18 39:15,20 46:3 46:8,19,23 47:12,17,21 48:3,8,12,18 54:1,8,15 55:1 55:5,23 56:10
59:7,9 63:15 64:9,12 66:4 67:19 69:15,22 70:4 72:3,18 72:24 82:9 room 34:12 root 75:20 ROTC 68:1,3,7 68:20 69:10,13 78:2 roughly 57:25 rule 12:8,22 42:25 43:1 rules 17:5 run 27:16 runs 51:11 67:24 S S 2:1 3:1 SAT 67:11 satisfaction 82:5 satisfactory 80:15 satisfied 12:18 16:17 23:14 satisfies 12:6 satisfy 9:3,13 10:9 48:4,9 70:24 saw 26:15,16 saying 13:23 17:23 18:1,7 23:7 25:11 28:12 29:6 44:24 49:17 53:16,20 62:1 63:9 73:22 75:10 76:25 77:20 79:6 81:2 says 4:12 22:5 23:13 33:8 51:5,5,6 52:12 56:2,19 61:24 65:4 79:19 SA1 67:7
95
SA2 67:7 Scalia 7:1,7,23 8:4 11:8,14,18 11:24 13:5,17 13:21,24 14:1 15:4,12,14 24:23 25:2,6 34:3,8,22 35:13,16,23 36:2 41:22 42:5,11,24 50:12,18 51:4 56:24 57:3,7 58:10,25 59:2 62:5,9,15,20 62:24 71:13,17 71:20 school 5:8 7:12 7:19 24:13 25:7 29:24 30:8 34:10 41:17 76:17 schools 24:11 43:14 69:1 school's 67:9,12 scientist 77:24 score 30:16 67:11 79:5,5 79:13,15,16 scoring 79:12 scrutiny 3:20 28:13,20 80:9 Seal 56:23 second 4:25 23:12 32:3 74:15 Secondly 51:24 see 12:3 23:4 24:22 26:12 27:20 31:3 34:13 48:18 53:6 55:9 73:20 78:12 80:22 seeing 75:22 seeking 73:1 seen 9:14 43:19
segregated 43:13 56:12 segregating 14:7 self-determin... 33:3 self-identify 34:1,4 seminar 67:1 sense 42:16 55:3 56:16 65:23 69:8 separate 77:2 separated 24:10 series 70:21 seriously 14:19 15:5,5 43:9 serve 27:9 64:4 service 42:18 67:8 set 19:7 49:18 49:20,24 65:22 setting 20:1,2,2 settings 68:13 shape 72:7 shaping 59:24 share 29:12 shocking 37:23 short 9:9 show 54:20 showed 47:24 shown 28:24 42:16,18 shows 23:1 43:7 side 5:5 25:23 80:16,16 sides 57:24 significant 60:18 69:13 simple 25:15 67:18 simply 13:10 20:12 25:11 30:23 34:19 38:10 57:25 70:7 single 34:19 single-parent
67:10 sir 7:6 67:4 situation 33:22 63:1,4 64:4,14 67:12 70:7 76:20 situations 42:8 Sixteen 50:13 size 38:13 71:15 small 16:19 28:9 37:7 51:13,18 77:16 social 10:21 society 60:5 69:10 socioeconomic 27:12 67:9 79:25 socioeconomics 29:21 soft 10:17 Solicitor 1:20 75:18 solution 9:16,21 30:24 41:2,4 somebody 15:7 28:3 34:12 35:17 somewhat 14:18 son 7:18 sorry 21:15 26:17 52:25 54:8 sorting 78:9,16 Sotomayor 4:9 4:12 5:4,7,17 5:19,24 6:2,9 6:12,15,25 10:21 14:4,16 15:2,19 16:24 17:9,19,21 18:4,6,14,21 19:7,15,18,24 27:15,22 29:16 31:22 49:13 51:2 65:15 66:2 73:12,18
73:24 74:1,8 74:20,23 75:5 76:12,23 77:4 77:20 81:16,19 81:23 82:1 sounds 19:24 source 69:13 so-called 10:17 15:22 20:23 21:8 spawned 78:17 speak 10:20 15:24 16:11 specific 34:18 53:25 58:5 59:3 65:25 70:19 74:5 specifically 9:16 38:3 39:5,25 42:1 43:25 46:6 74:4 speculative 24:19 73:20 spelled 52:12 split 14:24 spoken 67:11 spokespersons 47:10 50:3 stagnant 41:11 stand 75:15 standalone 29:22 standard 16:25 49:21,23 53:3 standing 3:24 4:14 7:15,20 7:22 55:2,20 73:6 74:2 75:11 star 76:16,17 start 10:16 14:23 started 6:7 78:20 state 7:2,2 14:7 14:10 15:7,8 17:3,17 25:4,7
40:3,4 49:1 stated 81:15 statement 61:19 States 1:1,13,22 2:10 26:7 59:11,25 60:7 state's 32:5 Statistically 77:17 status 67:9,9 steadily 25:24 stereotypes 42:23 61:4 stood 79:20 stop 49:15 50:25 71:13,17 strength 29:21 72:10 strict 3:19 28:13 28:20 80:8 structured 29:19 65:12 stuck 17:4 student 14:22 22:17 29:23 30:7 32:9 34:20 36:5,6,7 59:20 62:13 67:2 76:13 77:22,23 students 10:12 10:22 11:6 16:23 17:10 32:16 36:9,11 36:24 43:16 46:12,18 47:9 47:13 48:22 58:24 59:5 77:5,12,15 student's 63:21 studies 10:21 study 17:10 35:20,23,24 36:25 38:7 39:6 stuff 51:4,5,6 subgroups
96
14:24 52:15 submitted 82:11 82:13 substantial 11:1 18:2 41:3 substantiated 70:24 subtly 63:13,16 subtract 38:23 succeeded 42:17 success 80:5 successful 44:1 suddenly 58:19 suffered 8:3 56:21,25 suffice 41:2 sufficient 4:13 36:21 56:3 suggest 14:19 15:5,5 69:20 71:9 suggested 75:8 suggesting 76:12 summarize 28:12 summary 4:17 summer 5:9,13 73:11 supervision 80:8 Supplemental 36:1 support 24:20 supporting 1:22 2:11 59:12 suppose 9:17 32:19 53:1 supposed 3:23 23:20 39:21 46:14 48:13 supposition 63:24 65:16 Supreme 1:1,13 sure 12:20 68:5 72:3 survey 11:4,5 47:13
27:22 39:21 46:13 48:19 69:16 81:23 telling 16:24 28:12 ten 9:8 tend 43:13 tended 45:25 terms 18:19 31:16 40:23 44:11 52:4 test 10:25 11:3 16:8,9,10,12 67:6 tested 5:1 74:14 T tests 3:19 T 2:1,1 Texas 1:6 3:7,15 table 66:25 3:25 4:10,20 tailor 19:4,6 5:16 6:23 10:1 tailored 20:6 14:6 15:23 30:19 31:23 16:1 17:8 39:21 46:10 19:11 20:10 69:25 22:5 23:13 tailoring 18:16 24:12 25:8 18:17 19:4 29:13 35:10 29:5 31:23 40:12,13,16,17 65:1 41:10 44:5 take 9:16 12:15 46:12 48:1 15:12 23:13 50:8 52:3 24:14 25:3 54:24 56:2,8 26:10 45:15 57:11 58:13,15 51:1 65:16 58:22 59:6 66:7 77:25 60:14 61:15,23 taken 28:3 33:23 62:15 65:7 66:6 68:20 68:7,19,23,24 71:24 69:6,11 72:14 talking 5:14 80:21 81:7 16:6 20:16 Thank 31:7,11 21:6 34:23 54:18 59:7,8 42:12 66:5 70:5 72:4,17 76:21 81:14 72:18,22 82:8 target 13:9 21:1 82:9 75:24 thing 12:5 22:5 Tech 68:24 23:17 25:20 tell 6:22 14:4 27:21 35:3 18:14,15 20:4 55:15 58:18 20:22 27:16,19 66:7 74:15
surveyed 24:21 surviving 80:16 sustain 6:3 7:20 sustainable 4:20 sustained 74:14 Suter 3:11 system 4:5 5:16 14:6,8 20:4,5 22:4,10 27:24 65:18 74:9 78:4,7 79:12 79:25 systematic 11:5 32:6,6
77:21 things 47:15,20 53:15,19 58:21 67:13 73:4 74:19 75:7 77:12 think 6:14 7:16 7:21 8:10 9:23 11:19,20 13:3 13:15,15 14:23 14:25,25 15:25 17:22,23 19:3 19:18 27:1 28:5 31:25 33:9,9,10 37:14,21 40:6 40:6,13,22,25 41:8 42:14 43:9,18 47:7 48:5 49:3,8,13 49:18,21,23 52:6,21 53:11 53:23 55:4 60:15 61:17,22 61:23,24 62:15 62:16 63:12,13 65:3,15 69:18 69:20 70:6,6 70:11,12 71:4 71:7,7,8,10 72:5 74:13 75:14 76:6,21 77:6 78:12,17 79:22 81:8 thinks 20:10 thought 8:14 21:16 43:15 56:10 63:7 79:10 thousand 26:6,7 80:24 thousands 26:10 three 73:4 thrown 15:3 thrust 6:20 14:25 18:8 tied 49:4
tie-breaker 63:8 63:13 time 8:10 9:9 12:4,11 22:1 26:20 31:3,5 38:8,22,25 39:6 50:16 51:11 54:16,17 67:24 68:17 74:6 75:2 78:3 tiny 37:12,12 today 14:8 23:15 25:12 79:20 told 17:9,10 56:11 top 10:1 20:23 20:24 21:1,9,9 24:21 25:6 32:5 38:20 41:15,16 43:20 44:6 60:17 68:8,8 total 22:2 37:7 38:15,19 totality 31:18 49:12 touch 73:4 track 61:8 trained 3:11 treated 57:5 treatment 3:17 4:6 6:5 18:10 29:7 30:20 treats 30:20 tried 20:19 22:6 23:15 66:24 trouble 22:18 70:21 true 32:17,24 41:24 54:12 56:15 64:17,19 64:19 truly 65:17 try 13:7 34:16 38:4 39:4 80:25 trying 8:18 12:3
97
understandings 8:23 understood 12:7 30:2 35:5 47:4 under-represe... 76:5 undisputed 49:5 49:9,9,10 55:15 union 72:13 United 1:1,13,21 2:10 26:7 59:11,25 60:7 uniting 72:12 universities 26:8 26:12 27:16 U 57:18 58:8,8 Uh-huh 27:4 59:23 60:3,24 ultimate 80:3 66:18 72:7 unable 15:24 75:22 81:24 16:11 university 1:6 unacceptable 3:7,15,25 4:19 82:6 5:15 9:19 unchecked 10:22 14:6 78:16,19 17:1,8 19:11 underlying 20:10 24:12,16 25:20 80:20 24:24 25:8 underprivileged 34:17 35:10 43:17 45:9 36:11,23 37:2 underreprese... 37:6,22 39:5 14:14 39:12,17 40:12 underreprese... 40:13,16 41:10 10:12 15:22 41:20 46:12 16:4 21:8,10 48:1 50:1,8 39:11 46:18 52:3 54:24 50:2 52:19 55:21 56:9 62:18 58:13,15,22 understand 59:6,22 60:14 20:10 29:20 60:19,23 62:4 38:14 41:22 68:19 69:6,11 46:8 53:24 69:17 70:14,20 60:11,12 63:6 70:24 71:6 66:5 68:14 72:14 75:4,6 69:3 76:14,15,20 understanding 77:7 19:5 37:5 50:5 university's 60:23 61:20 22:15 32:8
29:13 40:25 67:18 69:7 72:15 75:3 two 3:19 12:9,18 12:23 22:3 28:13 31:13 37:25 61:9,12 62:6,21 65:18 65:22 66:2 67:6 76:2 78:23 79:12 two-court 12:8 13:18 two-tiered 78:7 type 7:17
W W 1:16 2:3,13 3:8 72:20 walks 34:12 want 8:7,7 9:7 12:3,5,15 24:12 25:20 26:22 27:5 34:9 36:12,25 42:2 44:21 45:6,9 46:1 57:23 68:15 73:4,7 79:21 V 79:22 80:18 v 1:5 4:10 56:2 81:12,16,17,19 validly 34:24 81:20,20,23 value 39:1 82:1 valuing 29:17 wanted 18:9 varied 65:21 57:17,18 various 54:7 wants 68:18 vary 40:2,3,6 warrant 51:13 varying 8:23 Washington 1:9 vastly 21:3 1:16,18,21 Verrilli 1:20 2:9 wasn't 5:2 11:7 59:9,10,13 16:12 26:9 60:11 61:17,22 41:4 62:8,14,23 way 6:24 9:18 63:3,12 64:5 11:5,18 18:18 64:11,13,22 23:14 24:10,17 65:24 66:12 30:17,23 31:24 67:15,17,21 33:14,21,25,25 68:5,9,16 69:2 44:22 60:20 69:5,18 70:2,5 63:23 65:12 71:16,19,23 66:13 70:12 72:4 71:25 74:15 view 19:12 76:6,23 78:5 28:13 69:16 79:11 82:2 70:1 79:23 weaknesses 81:7
49:15 65:2 70:1,8,19 unknown 19:4 unlimited 82:3 upheld 31:19 33:11 72:16 use 3:16 4:5,13 6:19 8:25 10:14 13:12 18:15 19:20,21 22:7 27:7,23 28:4 30:16 46:9,24 57:17 58:2 63:10 69:24 75:23 76:9,20 78:14 78:16 81:12,25 82:4,5 UT 6:18 75:1,9 75:22 78:4,12 79:3,19
viewed 62:2 viewpoints 42:2 42:5,6,10 violate 33:6 violated 18:19 33:5 vision 62:3 vital 59:25
Wednesday 1:10 weigh 27:16 weight 71:15 weird 13:21 well-educated 61:11 well-prepared 68:11 well-qualified 68:10 went 8:15 25:25 26:1 58:20 68:25 75:6 we'll 19:16 we're 12:23 18:1 19:21 26:8 27:15 46:5 49:10,20 50:21 50:23,23,25 66:5 73:1 we've 5:23 7:1 8:22 9:14 13:11 15:25 52:17 64:1 80:14 white 29:23 30:7 44:10 wholly 78:25 window 81:14 81:15 wins 63:1 wish 15:12 withdraw 67:22 word 23:13 44:14,14 72:2 words 13:10 19:20 38:4 75:17 80:23 work 30:14 42:22 67:8 worked 13:2 working 13:9 39:17 works 24:10 32:5 world 78:25
98
worry 29:9 63:11 worse 24:11 41:11 wouldn't 6:8 39:9 53:10 58:19,19 write 16:9 67:20 80:12,23 writing 73:16 written 73:14 75:24 wrong 43:5 wrongly 23:2 wrote 80:19 X x 1:2,8 53:4
51:17 58:20 60:17 65:20 68:8 72:19 76:19 11-345 1:4 3:6 11:04 1:14 3:2 12 14:10 16:23 12:23 82:12 138 49:7 51:22 14 7:14 15 16:23 20:25 21:7,16,25 33:19,20 76:19 16 50:13 18 16:5 1978 78:21 1998 43:3
398a 61:24 4 4 14:8 16:22 26:2 40 16:7 77:15 415 54:22 416 54:22 43 69:12 5 5 25:23,24 26:3 5,000 37:6 59 2:10 6 6 14:9 7 7 41:9 72 2:14 75 25:13 79 55:17 9 90 38:12
2 Y 2 14:9,12 49:2 year 19:22 21:25 2,000 80:24 25:24 34:6 20 40:8 76:19 50:23 57:19,20 200 37:10,15 years 8:9,10 2002 41:11 48:1 41:9 50:13,13 52:2 58:9 2003-2004 39:8 yield 25:16 27:9 2004 16:1 21:19 yielded 16:22 27:3 38:5 52:2 2008 54:24 $ 201 36:20 $100 73:13,21 2012 1:10 74:3,10 2028 11:22 21 16:3 21:19 1 25 8:9 60:21 1 15:9,10 44:7 1/32nd 35:18 3 10 1:10 9:16,18 3 2:4 16:22 26:2 9:21 10:1 41:12 48:1,6 20:17,18,20,23 48:25 20:24 21:1,5,7 3,000 80:24 21:9,9,17,18 30 24:2 35:4 21:24 23:23,25 58:9 24:6,13,15,21 31 2:7 24:23 25:7,22 33 63:18 25:25 32:5 34 43:6 37:4,25 38:20 350 16:23 41:2,4,15,16 38 21:22 42:25 43:1,20 389 53:8

Decisão Cotas Usa

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Decisão Cotas Usa

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Official - Subject to Final Review

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x Washington, D.C. Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Alderson Reporting Company

Official - Subject to Final Review

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORAL ARGUMENT OF BERT W. REIN, ESQ.

Alderson Reporting Company

Official - Subject to Final Review

if the injury is rejection by the University of Texas, 3

Official - Subject to Final Review

Official - Subject to Final Review

She -- she was not automatically admitted.

She has graduated. Injunctive relief, she's

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: not going to get.

So what measure of damages will she

But you have to claim an

Official - Subject to Final Review

Well --- that you're claiming

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: give me another -MR. REIN:

Well, I think --- damages question.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: MR. REIN:

On the -- if we then, on remand,

And I would point out that Texas said below,

Alderson Reporting Company

Official - Subject to Final Review

We've had cases involving

Official - Subject to Final Review

Just as when a person is denied

would be good law for at least 25 years.

Official - Subject to Final Review

interest; what does a critical mass -JUSTICE BREYER: So your question is

argue it right now in the next ten minutes?

Official - Subject to Final Review

So what do -- why isn't that even

Official - Subject to Final Review

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Grutter? day. survey.

It's not reported in any systematic way.

evidently interviewed students. classroom isolation.

And it was all about

It wasn't about -Was it -- was it done

And by the way, do you

Alderson Reporting Company

Official - Subject to Final Review

That was not -- that was -I agree it might, but I

It was adopted Each

after the consideration of race-neutral means.

So maybe there's some others.

I'm not sure we agree with those

Official - Subject to Final Review

And -- particularly in the case

we've got to do more.

Court to restate that principle. JUSTICE SCALIA:

That -- that's a normal

And I'm -- I'm not saying -It's an estimation, isn't

JUSTICE SCALIA: A judgment? 13

Alderson Reporting Company

Official - Subject to Final Review

Well, Justice Scalia, that is

And in addition, the courts didn't find

I'm looking at the number of Pre-Grutter,

blacks in the University of Texas system.

Official - Subject to Final Review