As McGuireWoods explained in previous alerts, the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA) left open several questions on its impact on higher education institutions and employers. 600 U.S. 181 (2023). In the SFFA decision, the Supreme Court held that the admissions processes at Harvard College and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, with respect to UNC as a public university, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the manner in which the schools considered race. The Supreme Court’s June 2023 opinion specifically excluded from its application U.S. military academies, leaving unanswered whether the same reasoning in SFFA would apply to military academies, such as the U.S. Naval Academy. On Dec. 6, 2024, in the case Students for Fair Admissions v. U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland considered the race-conscious admissions process at the U.S. Naval Academy, and ruled that the answer to that question is no.
Just three months after the SFFA decision, the same plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, sued the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA or Naval Academy) in the U.S. District Court of Maryland, challenging USNA’s race-conscious admissions program. USNA is a four-year federally established undergraduate institution that prepares students to become officers in the Navy and Marine Corps. Although the Supreme Court specifically noted in its opinion that SFFA did not address “the propriety of race-based admissions systems” “at our nation’s military academies … in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present,” Students for Fair Admissions sought to expand the SFFA decision to include USNA. Students for Fair Admissions argued that any consideration of race by USNA is impermissible under the SFFA decision.
In a narrow ruling, the Maryland federal court declined to extend the holding in SFFA to the applications process at USNA. In a nearly 200-page opinion, the court concluded that despite the rejection of race-conscious college admissions programs in SFFA, the USNA’s race-conscious admissions satisfy the strict scrutiny standard because the Naval Academy has established a compelling national security interest in having a diverse officer corps in the Navy and Marine Corps and because the program was narrowly tailored to meet that compelling interest.
The court came to this conclusion for three primary reasons. First, the court found that USNA met their burden to prove that a diverse Navy and Marine Corps served a compelling governmental interest in national security. Unlike in SFFA, USNA did not claim benefits that flow from a diverse student body as the compelling interest served by race-conscious admissions. Rather, USNA argued that its race-conscious admissions policies serve a compelling interest in national security by improving the Navy and Marine Corps’ unit cohesion and lethality, recruitment and retention, and domestic and international legitimacy. The court found that these areas were “inherently intertwined” and was persuaded that a diverse officer corps trained in a diverse environment is better able to understand unique experiences and develop cultural competency, which improves unit cohesion, in turn, improving recruitment and retention. Notably, the court cited to the long line of precedent requiring deference to the executive branch with respect to military personnel decisions, recognizing that in cases implicating strict scrutiny in the military context, the judiciary defers to its coordinate branches’ logical determinations about the existence of a compelling governmental interest.
Second, the court found that even though a compelling interest does “not have to be measurable,” USNA could show that its compelling interest in preserving national security by improving recruitment and retention was measurable. The court agreed that the data presented by USNA showed that there was measurable improvement in the racial and ethnic diversity of the Navy and Marine officer corps between 2001 and 2024. The court also recognized that USNA was able to show increased retention of diverse Navy and Marine Corp officers. The court found that such data demonstrated that USNA’s national security in recruiting and retaining a racially and ethnically diverse officer corps was measurable.
Third, the court found that USNA’s race-conscious admissions program was narrowly tailored. The court found that the evidence “clearly indicates that the Naval Academy does not employ quotas, admit candidates based solely on their race or ethnicity, or place minority candidates.” To the extent USNA considered race, the court was persuaded that the Naval Academy considers “each candidate holistically such that race is only one aspect of an applicant’s diverse qualities.” The court emphasized that the Naval Academy considered applicants based on several factors, including their computer-generated Whole Person Multiple score — which specifically prohibited assigning points based on race — their personal statement, recommendations, and interviews.
The court also disagreed that USNA engaged in racial balancing or used race as a negative or stereotype. Instead, the court found that USNA implemented its admissions policies without reference to the ethnic or racial makeup of its midshipmen class as compared to that of the United States. The court further found persuasive USNA’s representation that its race-conscious admissions practices should not — and would not — continue indefinitely, and that it would end its race-conscious admissions when “the incoming classes of midshipmen enable [USNA] to develop a Navy and Marine officer corps that better represents racial and ethnic diversity among enlisted servicemembers and the American population.” Finally, the court found that USNA had undertaken documented good faith efforts to employ race-neutral admissions programs, but that every other attempted alternative measure did not further USNA’s compelling national security interest as well as its race-conscious admissions procedures.
It is notable that the federal district court found that USNA’s race-conscious admissions practices satisfied the strict scrutiny standard, including that the USNA was able to articulate a compelling interest in using race-conscious admissions even in light of the Supreme Court decision involving Harvard and UNC. However, the case has already been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. We will continue to track developments in this case as it makes its way through the courts.
McGuireWoods has a dedicated Higher Education Team and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Team that can assist your institution in this quickly developing area. Please contact any of the authors for more information.