Abstract
The future of affirmative action in the United States military service academies faces critical uncertainty following the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, which ended race-conscious admissions practices in higher education. Although the Court explicitly excluded the service academies from its holding, reserving space for race-conscious practices tied to national security-the Naval Academy, Military Academy, and Air Force Academy have recently indicated they will discontinue the use of affirmative action in response to changes in Department of Defense policy.
This Comment examines the historical and statutory foundations of the military academies' admissions systems and analyzes whether their prior race-conscious practices satisfy the strict scrutiny standard articulated in Fair Admissions, or whether a distinct standard should apply given the academies' unique national security mission. It argues that the military service academies' use of race-conscious admissions furthers a compelling government interest in national security, advanced through goals such as unit cohesion and public legitimacy, both of which are capable of judicial review. Additionally, this Comment contends that affirmative action may also be justified through direct remediation of racial disparities in the congressional nomination process.
The committee concludes that the means historically employed by the academies are narrowly tailored to achieve these interests, and either meet or are not governed by all the requirements set forth in Fair Admissions. Courts should continue to defer to military expertise in matters of national security and recognize that the distinct context of the service academies demands a different application of strict scrutiny than that applied to civilian institutions.
Included in
Administrative Law Commons, Conflict of Laws Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Judges Commons, Jurisprudence Commons
