A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upholds the University of Texas' affirmative action program gives higher education institutions the go-head to pursue such programs and relieves worries these programs would have to be discarded, say experts.

In its 4-3 ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin et al., the court upheld a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and held the university did not violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause in considering race as a factor in its admissions policy.

The case had been filed by Abigail Noel Fisher, who had been denied admission to the university's Class of 2008.

The June 23 ruling was the second time the Supreme Court had considered this case. In 2013, the court remanded the case to the 5th Circuit because it found the appeals court had not held the university to the “demanding burden of strict scrutiny” required in earlier decisions in considering the case.

The appeals court ruled in the university's favor, and Ms. Fisher appealed.

According to the latest ruling, up to 75% of the university's freshman class is filled under a program mandated by the Texas legislature in which the top 10% of Texas high school graduates are guaranteed admission.

The remaining 25% of students can be admitted under a program that takes into consideration race among other factors, including the applicant's extracurricular activities, awards and honors and community service.

While ruling in the university's favor, Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion said also the university “must tailor its approach in light of changing circumstances, ensuring that race plays no greater role than is necessary to meet its compelling interest.”

“It is the university's ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies,” said the court.

In his dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the “university still has not identified with any degree of specificity the interests that its use of race and ethnicity is supposed to serve.”

Narrow rulingsubhed OK?

The ruling “allows public universities and colleges to go ahead and pursue the objective” of diversity in their student body and have a “race conscious” program as long as there is a need for diversity and there are not less burdensome ways of achieving it, said F. Christopher Chrisbens, of counsel at Jackson Lewis P.C. in Denver, who was not involved in the case.

Mr. Chrisbens added, however, that the majority opinion's analysis is “very, very specific” to the University of Texas' program “so it's hard to take more generally applicable messages from this case.”

The university did not have statistics to establish whether its racially neutral 10% program achieved diversity by itself and therefore whether the additional program was even necessary, said Mr. Chrisbens.

Justice Kennedy indicated the outcome of the case “could have been different had it had — more information about the impact of the 10% program,” Mr. Chrisbens said.

“There's no doubt that Justice Kennedy made it clear that it is a narrow decision, and there are some features of the Texas program that you're not likely to see in other programs, particularly the combination of the 10% program combined with the holistic examination of characteristics,” said David J. Goldstein, a shareholder with Littler Mendelson P.C. in Minneapolis, referring to the program used to select the 25% of students who do not qualify for the 10% program. Mr. Goldstein submitted amicus briefs in the case in support of the University of Texas on behalf of several organizations

But this decision, in conjunction with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action program, “makes it very clear that there's a good deal of room left for colleges and universities to take affirmative actions in admissions,” Mr. Goldstein said.

The decision is “extremely significant because we were worried that the Supreme Court was going to make it difficult, if not entirely impossible, to engage in affirmative action in higher education,” Mr. Goldstein said.