The Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program (McNair Program) was established by Congress in 1987 to assist disadvantaged students in preparing for doctoral studies. The Department of Education administers the program, awarding competitive five-year grants to higher education institutions to implement McNair projects.
The program’s eligibility criteria include two distinct pathways for student participation: (1) low-income, first-generation college students; and (2) students from racial groups underrepresented in graduate education, as defined by statute and regulation. The racial eligibility criteria include Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Native American Pacific Islander students.
The Young Americans for Freedom, Young America’s Foundation, Avery Durfee, and Benjamin Rothove filed suit against the U.S. Department of Education and Secretary Miguel Cardona. The plaintiffs challenged the racial eligibility requirement, alleging that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and constituted an unlawful regulatory action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The individual plaintiffs, Avery Durfee, a third-year student at the University of North Dakota, and Benjamin Rothove, a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, alleged that they wanted to apply for the McNair Program but refrained from doing so because they were ineligible under the racial criteria. They argued that the policy harmed their personal dignity and denied them equal treatment in the application process.
In addition, Young America’s Foundation and Young Americans for Freedom, both of which are student organizations, argued that they had other members who would apply to the McNair Program but were excluded due to their race.
The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit the Department of Education from enforcing or implementing the racial eligibility requirements.
The plaintiffs advanced two main claims. First, they argued that the racial eligibility criteria constituted race-based discrimination and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Second, they claimed the Department of Education’s regulations improperly imposed racial classifications beyond the statutory authority granted by Congress.
The Department of Education did not directly dispute the merits of the Equal Protection claim, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard (2023), which heightened scrutiny of race-based admissions policies. Instead, the government argued that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case.
To establish standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a plaintiff must show (1) an injury-in-fact that is concrete and particularized, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and (3) that the injury is redressable by a favorable court decision.
The government argued that neither Durfee nor Rothove actually applied for the McNair Program, and even if they had applied, they would have been ineligible for other reasons, namely, not qualifying under the low-income, first-generation student category. The government also noted that the Department of Education does not directly control program admissions, as universities independently select participants.
In considering the injury-in-fact, the Court acknowledged that in an Equal Protection case, plaintiffs do not need to apply for a program to claim harm if the policy itself creates a barrier to equal treatment. However, the Court found the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries speculative since they had not even attempted to apply and were possibly ineligible for other reasons.
In terms of redressability, the Court reasoned that the Department of Education only administers funding but does not directly admit students to the program. The University of North Dakota and University of Wisconsin-Madison independently screen and select applicants, meaning an injunction against the Department would not compel those universities to change their admissions policies. The Department had already allocated funding for the McNair Program through 2027, so any relief would not affect current funding cycles. The Court noted that the University of North Dakota and the University of Wisconsin-Madison were not named defendants, meaning the Court had no authority to order them to change their admissions policies.
The Court also determined that the organizational plaintiffs, Young America’s Foundation and Young Americans for Freedom, failed to establish standing because if individual members lacked standing, the organizations could not assert claims on their behalf.
The Court dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs may refile the lawsuit in the future with properly named defendants, including universities administering the McNair Program.
Young Americans for Freedom v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ. (D.N.D. Dec. 31, 2024) No. 3:24-cv-00163.
Note: This case is another recent affirmative action challenge following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Students for Fair Admission. For private K-12 schools, this case highlights the importance of reviewing affirmative action-based scholarship programs to ensure compliance with evolving legal standards, particularly as challenges to race-conscious policies continue. LCW will monitor this case for developments.