On May 1, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that effectively ended the use of affirmative action in college admissions, declaring that race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This decision overturns decades of precedent that permitted race-conscious admissions policies aimed at fostering diverse student bodies. The ruling has significant implications for higher education institutions nationwide, prompting them to reevaluate their admissions criteria and explore alternative methods to achieve diversity without considering race.

The Supreme Court's ruling was a 6-3 decision in the University of North Carolina case and a 6-2 decision in the Harvard case, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recusing herself from the latter due to her previous affiliation with Harvard's governing board. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the universities' admissions programs failed to comply with the narrow restrictions previously established by the Court. Roberts noted that while the goals of training future leaders and promoting the robust exchange of ideas are commendable, they are too vague for judicial measurement. He further argued that the programs relied on racial stereotyping and lacked a "logical end point," thereby violating the Equal Protection Clause.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, asserting that the majority's decision rolled "back decades of precedent and momentous progress." Justice Jackson, in a separate dissent, described the ruling as "truly a tragedy for us all," emphasizing that deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.

President Joe Biden expressed strong disagreement with the Court's decision, urging colleges to seek alternative routes to achieve diversity without considering race. He emphasized that institutions should not abandon their commitment to ensuring student bodies reflect all of America.

Developments Following the Ruling

In response to the ruling, Harvard University President Lawrence Bacow stated that Harvard would comply with the law but remained steadfast in its belief that "deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences."

Several developments have followed:

• Enrollment Changes: Harvard's freshman class of 2028 saw a decline in Black student enrollment from 18% to 14%, while Hispanic enrollment increased slightly from 14% to 16%.

• Federal Funding Disputes: The Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard, demanding changes in governance and admissions policies. Harvard filed a lawsuit on April 21, 2025, asserting that the funding freeze was "arbitrary and capricious" and violated the university’s First Amendment rights.

• Tax-Exempt Status Threats: President Donald Trump reiterated threats to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status, intensifying tensions over the university's resistance to federal directives. The Treasury Department initiated steps to revoke the status, purportedly independent of Trump's influence.

• Internal Reforms: Harvard pledged to reform its academic, admissions, and disciplinary policies following internal reports addressing antisemitism and anti-Arab bias on campus. The university plans to review its admissions process to better assess applicants' openness to diverse perspectives and introduce antisemitism training.

• Impact on Diversity Programs: The Trump administration's crackdown on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs led colleges, including Harvard, to cancel affinity graduation ceremonies. Officials cited the need to comply with new federal guidance following the Supreme Court ruling against racial preferences in admissions.

The Supreme Court's decision in 2025 marked a significant departure from previous rulings that upheld affirmative action in college admissions. In the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's consideration of race as one factor among many to achieve diversity. The 2025 ruling effectively overturned this precedent, signaling a shift towards a more restrictive interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause concerning race-conscious admissions policies.

As colleges and universities navigate this new legal landscape, they are exploring alternative methods to maintain diverse student bodies. These include broadening recruitment efforts to underserved communities, developing robust middle school and high school pipelines, increasing need-based supports, and improving campus climate. The long-term impact of the Supreme Court's decision on diversity in higher education remains to be seen, but institutions are committed to finding lawful ways to foster inclusive environments.