Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. University of North Carolina
Docket: 1:14-cv-954
Court: District Court, M.D. North Carolina; January 12, 2017; Federal District Court
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) has filed a lawsuit against the University of North Carolina and associated officials, claiming that the university's admissions policy, which considers race, violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. SFFA argues that race is used as a "dominant factor" rather than a mere "plus" factor in admissions and that race-neutral alternatives exist to achieve diversity. They seek a declaratory judgment to declare the policy unlawful.
In response, UNC-Chapel Hill has denied any violations and provided various defenses. The court initially stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which was decided in June 2016, after which the stay was lifted.
Proposed Intervenors, comprising four minority students currently attending UNC-Chapel Hill and five prospective minority students from North Carolina, seek to intervene in the case. They aim to ensure a comprehensive evidentiary record regarding the university's use of race in admissions and that any changes resulting from the litigation respect their constitutional rights. They do not wish to become full parties in the case but want to present evidence on the historical context of segregation and discrimination at UNC-Chapel Hill and the implications of the admissions policies on student diversity. The court has granted their motion to intervene with specific conditions outlined in the order.
Proposed Intervenors assert the importance of evidence related to their interests in the case, indicating that UNC-Chapel Hill may not present this evidence, as reflected in its Rule 26(f) report. They seek intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, alternatively, permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). SFFA and UNC oppose this intervention, suggesting that the Proposed Intervenors participate only as amicus curiae.
Rule 24 outlines two types of intervention: as of right (Rule 24(a)(2)) and permissive (Rule 24(b)). Courts review both types for abuse of discretion, but the standard for intervention as of right is more constrained. The Fourth Circuit favors liberal intervention to address controversies efficiently and ensure all interested parties can participate.
For intervention as of right, a movant must satisfy a four-part test: (1) the application is timely, (2) there is a significant interest in the underlying action, (3) not allowing intervention would impair the applicant's ability to protect that interest, and (4) the applicant's interests are not adequately represented by existing parties. Failure to meet any criterion precludes intervention as of right.
Permissive intervention allows the court to permit intervention if the claim or defense shares common questions of law or fact with the main action. The court retains discretion to set conditions for intervention and must consider whether it would unduly delay or prejudice the original parties, though these factors do not solely determine the outcome of a permissive intervention motion.
Proposed Intervenors sought either intervention as of right or permissive intervention in a legal case involving UNC-Chapel Hill’s admissions process. The Court opted to grant permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), making it unnecessary to determine intervention as of right. Neither SFFA nor UNC-Chapel Hill disputed the common legal and factual questions between their defense and the Proposed Intervenors' interests. The Court assessed the timeliness of the Proposed Intervenors' motion based on three factors: the progress of the case, potential prejudice to the existing parties, and reasons for the delay. The motion, filed on June 30, 2015, was deemed timely as the case had not advanced significantly—discovery had just begun—and the deadlines for joining additional parties had not passed. The Court noted that any delay caused by allowing intervention would not prejudice SFFA or UNC-Chapel Hill, especially since the case had been stayed shortly after the motion was filed and new discovery deadlines were subsequently established. Overall, the Court found no undue delay or prejudice resulting from granting the motion to intervene.
Proposed Intervenors argue their motion for intervention was delayed until after UNC-Chapel Hill filed its Rule 26(f) report, revealing that their interests might not be adequately represented. They assert that intervention is essential for a full defense of UNC-Chapel Hill’s race-conscious admissions process and to uphold their constitutional rights and Title VI protections. The Court finds their explanation for the delay reasonable and concludes that the motion was timely.
SFFA and UNC-Chapel Hill raise concerns about potential undue delay and prejudice resulting from the intervention, including the need to extend discovery deadlines, increased discovery burdens, and privacy issues related to sensitive student materials. In response, Proposed Intervenors clarify they seek limited intervention focused on two specific issues: the history of segregation and discrimination at UNC-Chapel Hill and the impact of admissions processes on student diversity. They plan to conduct most of their evidence gathering through declarations and expert testimony, asserting that they can complete this without disrupting the current discovery schedule, which has approximately eleven months remaining.
The Court is not convinced by SFFA and UNC-Chapel Hill’s concerns about complications or delays resulting from the intervention, noting the case is still in early stages and that Proposed Intervenors have indicated they do not need access to sensitive student application information. The Court believes that any complications arising from adding another party are minimal compared to the importance of the issues at stake. It also notes that conditions can be imposed to manage Proposed Intervenors’ participation effectively. SFFA’s argument that denying intervention would not harm Proposed Intervenors is acknowledged but deemed not decisive in the Court's discretion to grant permissive intervention.
Courts assessing permissive intervention may evaluate whether it aids in fully developing factual issues and ensuring just legal adjudication. Proposed Intervenors argue that evidence of segregation and discrimination in North Carolina, particularly regarding the University’s admissions process, is vital for demonstrating the necessity of considering race in admissions. Neither SFFA nor UNC-Chapel Hill contest that this evidence will enhance the legal and factual discourse. The Court recognizes that the Proposed Intervenors’ involvement could enrich the case and ensure diverse legal arguments are presented.
SFFA and UNC-Chapel Hill reference an earlier case involving Harvard, where intervention was denied but amicus participation was permitted. They suggest a similar approach here, asserting it would suffice. However, the Court distinguishes this case from the Harvard scenario, noting that the Proposed Intervenors seek limited participation, unlike the Harvard case where they aimed for full involvement. Additionally, UNC-Chapel Hill's status as a public institution subject to state regulations contrasts with Harvard’s private status, particularly given that a majority of its freshman class must be from North Carolina—a state with its own history of discrimination. Most Proposed Intervenors are also from North Carolina, highlighting their unique stake in the litigation compared to students applying to Harvard.
The Court finds SFFA and UNC-Chapel Hill’s arguments insufficient, given the potential significant impact on North Carolinians’ access to UNC-Chapel Hill. The Court concludes that the Proposed Intervenors should be granted permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), as their motion was timely, their claims share common legal questions, and their participation will not cause undue delay or prejudice to existing parties. The decision aligns with the Fourth Circuit's preference for liberal intervention.
Proposed Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene in Defense of UNC-Chapel Hill’s Admissions Policy is partially granted. The Court denies the motion for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) but grants permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), with specific conditions: Proposed Intervenors must adhere to the existing scheduling order, will not access confidential discovery materials, and their discovery and evidence presentation are restricted to two issues: (1) the history of segregation and discrimination at UNC-Chapel Hill and in North Carolina, and (2) the impact of UNC-Chapel Hill’s current admissions processes and SFFA’s proposed processes on the diversity of the student body. These conditions may be altered only if the Magistrate Judge finds it necessary for effective case management or justice. A Joint Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal has been filed regarding claims against the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees. Notably, SFFA claims one member was denied admission to UNC-Chapel Hill in 2014, with the claims of high school applicant intervenors being pursued by their parents. A discovery Scheduling Order mandates that all discovery be completed by December 1, 2017, with fact discovery due by June 30, 2017. UNC-Chapel Hill has expressed concerns about potential complications from allowing multiple intervenors, although no other groups have sought to intervene, and any future group would need to meet intervention requirements.
