LDF represented 25 Harvard student and alumni organizations—comprised of more than 18,000 Asian American, Black, Latinx, Native, and white Harvard students and alumni—as amici curiae in the Harvard admissions case from 2018 until the case was closed in 2024. LDF presented members of our client organizations as witnesses at trial; submitted multiple briefs, declarations, and other evidence on their behalf; delivered oral arguments before the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; and submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the limited consideration of race in admissions advanced equal opportunity, particularly where many applicants’ experiences were inextricably intertwined with race. LDF also represented itself and the NAACP as amici curiae in Supreme Court briefing in the UNC case.
While the Supreme Court’s decision was a stark departure from nearly 45 years of precedent, it nevertheless declared that “nothing in [its] opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” In what may have been an implicit concession to our clients’ argument that SFFA’s requested remedy – eliminating all signs of race from the admissions process – would itself have an acute, foreseeable, and racially discriminatory disparate impact on applicants of color by censoring their experiences, the Court recognized that what applicants share about their experiences with race could indicate “courage and determination,” or “that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university.”
Justice Sotomayor quoted from LDF’s brief in the Harvard case in her dissent, noting: “’Because talent lives everywhere, but opportunity does not, there are undoubtedly talented students with great academic potential who have simply not had the opportunity to attain the traditional indicia of merit that provide a competitive edge in the admissions process.’” Citing to LDF’s brief in the UNC case, Justice Sotomayor explained: “The Court’s recharacterization of Brown is nothing but revisionist history and an affront to the legendary life of Justice Marshall, a great jurist who was a champion of true equal opportunity, not rhetorical flourishes about color blindness.