WASHINGTON, D.C. — In his concurring opinion in the landmark case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch cites an amicus brief prepared by Boyden Gray PLLC:
“Just as there is no question Harvard and UNC consider race in their admissions processes, there is no question both schools intentionally treat some applicants worse than others because of their race. Both schools frequently choose to award a ‘tip’ or a ‘plus’ to applicants from certain racial groups but not others. These tips or plusses are just what they sound like—’factors that might tip an applicant into [an] admitted class.’ 980 F. 3d 157, 170 (CA1 2020). And in a process where applicants compete for a limited pool of spots, ‘[a] tip for one race’ necessarily works as ‘a penalty against other races.’ Brief for Economists as Amici Curiae 20. As the trial court in the Harvard case put it: ‘Race conscious admissions will always penalize to some extent the groups that are not being advantaged by the process.’ 397 F. Supp. 3d, at 202–203.’” (Pages 8-9)
Additionally, Managing Partner Jonathan Berry was quoted in national news coverage commenting on the broader implications of the ruling:
In a Washington Post piece by Julian Mark and Eli Tan, Berry is quoted saying, “the Supreme Court ‘decision will likely reverberate far beyond academia.’ He said, ‘In particular, employers should be fully on notice that diversity is not an appropriate justification for race-discriminatory affirmative action in the workplace.’”
Kaelan Deese, Supreme Court Reporter for theWashington Examiner, also included Berry in the outlet’s coverage of the decision.