[15] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bakke, a 1978 landmark decision, that affirmative action could be used as a determining factor in college admission policy but that the University of California, Davis School of Medicine's racial quota was discriminatory.

[17] Institutions that receive federal funding, such as Harvard University, are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws racial discrimination.

The lawyers for SFFA stated that the initial hearing focused on the issue of discrimination against Asian American applicants, instead of trying to challenge affirmative action in general.

[27] Certain Asian American advocacy groups filed amicus briefs in support of SFFA, believing that they or their children are discriminated against in college admission processes.

[30] The complaints at the Department of Education were dismissed in July 2015 because a lawsuit making similar allegations had already been filed by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) in November 2014.

[33] From these sources, the plaintiffs alleged that Harvard admissions officers consistently rated Asian American applicants, as a group, lower than others on "positive personality traits," such as likability, courage, and kindness.

[33] As a result, the plaintiffs allege Asian American applicants have the lowest chance of admission of all racial groups in the United States, despite scoring highest in all objective measurements.

[33] The plaintiffs also claimed that Harvard's own Office of Institutional Research found a statistically significant penalty against Asian American applicants in an internal investigation in 2013, but had never made the findings public or acted on them.

In 2019 a district court judge upheld Harvard's limited use of race as a factor in admissions, stating that SFFA had provided no evidence that Asian Americans, or any other racial groups, had been harmed by it.

[46] The Justice Department filed friend-of-the-court briefs in both the initial hearing and the appeal, arguing that Harvard imposes "a racial penalty by systematically disfavoring Asian American applicants".

[47] SFFA petitioned the Supreme Court to review both the First Circuit's decision in the Harvard case, which focused on the impact of the admissions process on Asian Americans, and a similar decision from the Middle District of North Carolina, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of NC, et al., which focused on the impact on both Caucasian and Asian American applicants at the University of North Carolina and which had been decided in the school's favor in October 2021.

Other arguments in the SFFA-supporting briefs, including those from Cato Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation, considered that affirmative action policies are generally arbitrary, do not enhance diversity on campuses, and also violate the allowance for federal funding under Title VI.

[54] In support of the universities, both the Biden administration and several current and former senators wrote that historically, both the legislative and executive branches have worked to combat racial imbalances through affirmative action and are not intended to violate Title VI.

Sixty-five senators and representatives stated that despite both Brown and Grutter, segregation at K–12 schools continues to worsen, and affirmative action policies are needed to fight racial imbalance.

In his concurrence, Justice Thomas laid out an originalist argument for the "colorblind constitution" and also cited statistics that indicate race-conscious admissions to universities are done at the expense of a student's individual value.

Sotomayor wrote that the majority opinion's "interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is not only contrary to precedent and the entire teachings of our history ... but is also grounded in the illusion that racial inequality was a problem of a different generation.

But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life...It would be deeply unfortunate if the Equal Protection Clause actually demanded this perverse, ahistorical, and counterproductive outcome.

"[62][63] Former vice president Mike Pence said, "There is no place for discrimination based on race in the United States, and I am pleased that the Supreme Court has put an end to this egregious violation of civil and constitutional rights in admissions processes, which only served to perpetuate racism.

"[63] 2024 presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy wrote on social media that "affirmative action is a badly failed experiment: time to put a nail in the coffin & restore colorblind meritocracy.

"[66][67] Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer said, "The Supreme Court ruling has put a giant roadblock in our country's march toward racial justice.

"[63] Other Congressional Democrats, such as Senator Cory Booker, House Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Congressman Hank Johnson, voiced their disagreement with the decision.

"[63] Former First Lady Michelle Obama stated, "My heart breaks for any young person out there who’s wondering what their future holds — and what kinds of chances will be open to them.

"[63] President and CEO of the NAACP, Derrick Johnson, said that "affirmative action exists because we cannot rely on colleges, universities, and employers to enact admissions and hiring practices that embrace diversity, equity and inclusion," and that "Race plays an undeniable role in shaping the identities of and quality of life for Black Americans.

[67] President of the University of California system, Michael V. Drake, said in a statement that the ruling ends a "valuable practice that has helped higher education institutions increase diversity and address historical wrongs over the past several decades."

[70] Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that "the Department of Justice remains committed to promoting student diversity in higher education using all available legal tools.

In the coming weeks, we will work with the Department of Education to provide resources to college and universities on what admissions practices and programs remain lawful following the Court’s decision.

"[64] Michael Wang, whom USA Today described as "a poster child for the anti-affirmative action movement" who had filed discrimination complaints against three universities with the federal Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in 2013 and met with SFFA's founder, later said, "a part of me regrets what I’ve put forward".

[71] America First Legal, a conservative litigation outfit headed by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, sent letters to more than 200 U.S. law schools within days of the Court's ruling threatening them with lawsuits unless they immediately terminate all race and sex preferences in student admissions, faculty hiring, and law-review membership or article selection.

[69] In August 2024, MIT was the first[citation needed] major private college to release data on the ethnic makeup of its new freshman class, showing a drop-off in Black and Latino students, while Asians made a significant gain.

[84] As of January 2025, Walmart, John Deere, Harley-Davidson, McDonald's, Meta and Amazon stated their intents to end DEI initiatives at their companies following the Supreme Court ruling.