A federal judge issued an opinion Wednesday allowing the United States Military Academy at West Point to continue using race as an admissions factor. This ruling comes after the Supreme Court changed the landscape of race-based affirmative action with its 2023 decision that effectively ended the practice at colleges and universities across the US.
The lawsuit, filed in September by Students for Fair Admission (SFFA), sued West Point, the US Army’s military academy, alleging that West Point’s use of race as a factor when considering a candidate for admission violated the Fifth Amendment. US District Judge Philip M. Halpern denied SFFA’s motion for a preliminary injunction. If granted, it would have allowed the judge to temporarily stop West Point from using race as a factor in its admission decisions until the court issued a final judgment.
Specifically, SFFA contended that West Point has “benchmarks” for the percentage of racial minority applicants to admit, which violates the Fifth Amendment’s federal guarantee of equal protection to all. SFFA claims West Point unconstitutionally considers race during three parts of its admissions process: when offering letters of assurance, when extending nominations, and when extending offers to additional appointees. West Point contends its commitment to affirmative action is essential because it “fosters cohesion and lethality; aids in recruitment of top talent; increases retention; and bolsters the Army’s legitimacy in the eyes of the nation and the world.”
When analyzing whether to grant SFFA’s motion for preliminary injunction, Halpern looked at whether SFFA had standing, whether SFFA had a likelihood of success on the merits of their complaint, whether SFFA plaintiffs will likely experience irreparable harm and weighed the public interest against SFFA’s complaint. The court found that SFFA does have standing because some of its members are ready to pursue the admissions process at West Point. Next, it found 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. The court went on to explain that the plaintiffs are not likely to experience irreparable injury because some of SFFA’s members who are ready to apply to West Point are far from the maximum age of 23 for matriculating at West Point. Also, 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.
SFFA was also the leading party in the lawsuit heard by the Supreme Court against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, challenging affirmative action on Fourteenth Amendment equal protection grounds and under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since that landmark decision last year, other petitions have also been filed. One claimed a Virginia high school’s admission policy discriminates against Asian Americans. Another petition alleged Harvard University’s legacy admissions policy violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prompted an investigation by the US Department of Education into Harvard’s legacy admissions practices.
