Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) requested on Friday that the Supreme Court block the United States Military Academy at West Point from using race as a factor in applications while its lawsuit makes it way through the lower courts. SFFA is the same group that sued Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, which led to the US Supreme Court effectively ending affirmative action.
In its emergency application for an injunction, SFFA argues that West Point’s race-based admissions policies violate the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The group says the Fifth Amendment applies because the case concerns a military academy and the federal government. Their initial lawsuit said, “The Fifth Amendment contains an equal-protection principle that binds the federal government and is no less strict than the Equal Protection Clause that binds the States.”
Additionally, SFFA asserts that West Point’s policies violate “every” principle from Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard. SFFA argues that West Point is not “exempt” from the Harvard ruling. The application also avers that the two White applicants it represents in the case will suffer “irreparable harm” absent an injunction because West Point is about to “illegally discriminate against thousands of applicants for the class of 2028—including two of 26 SFFA’s members—based on their skin color.” Thus, SFFA asked the court to enjoin West Point before January 31 because that is the last day for applicants to apply to the current cycle of applications to the academy.
SFFA sued West Point in September 2023 for setting “benchmarks” for the percentage of each class that should be filled by “African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians.” The complaint cites West Point documents that track the “racial balancing efforts.” Additionally, the lawsuit asserts that West Point’s justifications for its balancing efforts do not pass strict scrutiny.
Earlier this month, a federal judge in New York issued an opinion allowing West Point to continue using race as an admissions factor. There, the court found that SFFA did not have standing because some of its members were ready to pursue the admissions process at West Point. It also noted that the court could not adequately weigh whether West Point’s current admissions practices violate the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection because it has not properly analyzed the full factual record yet. This was the deciding factor in denying SFFA’s motion for preliminary injunction. However, the court found that the public interest weighed in favor of West Point because, without the present facts, the court could not justify having West Point change its entire admissions process during the middle of its admissions cycle.
In June 2023, the Supreme Court effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions. There, the court found that Harvard and UNC’s admissions processes did not pass strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is the standard of review that courts use that mandates that discrimination on the basis of a protected class must employ narrowly tailored measures to further a compelling governmental interest. The schools insisted that these processes allow colleges to create a more diverse educational environment, which leads to various positive outcomes for their students, which is a compelling interest. However, the court disagreed and ruled that this was not a compelling interest. Thus, the court concluded that these processes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A footnote from the majority opinion of that case states:
The United States as amicus curiae contends that race-based admissions programs further compelling interests at our Nation’s military academies. No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.
