This case arose from a legal challenge brought by a group of Wisconsin taxpayers against the Higher Educational Aids Board (HEAB) and its executive secretary over the administration of a state-funded college grant program. The plaintiffs argued that the program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees every person the right to be treated equally by the State, without regard to race, by offering financial aid exclusively to students from certain racial, ethnic, and national origin groups while excluding others.
By way of background, Wisconsin’s grant program, first established in 1985 and expanded in 1987, provided financial aid for undergraduate students who were Black American, American Indian, Hispanic, or had Laotian, Cambodian, or Vietnamese ancestry. The program was explicitly race-conscious, limiting eligibility to these designated groups without considering other financially needy students. The plaintiffs contended that this amounted to unconstitutional racial discrimination, as similarly situated students of different racial or ethnic backgrounds—such as Middle Eastern, Thai, or Chinese students—were categorically ineligible for the grants, regardless of their financial need.
The trial court upheld the program as constitutional, denying the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to HEAB. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reviewed the case in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA).
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals applied strict scrutiny, the highest standard of judicial review for laws that classify individuals based on race, national origin, or ancestry. Under this standard, the government must demonstrate that a race-based classification serves a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The Court found that HEAB failed to demonstrate that the program satisfied either requirement.
Initially, HEAB defended the grant program by arguing that it was necessary to increase student body diversity in Wisconsin’s private and technical colleges. However, the Court noted that after SFFA explicitly rejected student body diversity as a compelling interest for race-based decision-making, HEAB shifted its justification to retention and graduation disparities among minority students. The Court dismissed this revised rationale, stating that SFFA permits race-based classifications only in extraordinary circumstances, such as remedying specific past governmental discrimination or addressing prison safety concerns—neither of which applied here.
Furthermore, the Court found that the program was not narrowly tailored because it categorically excluded students from non-preferred racial and ethnic groups from eligibility, making race the determinative factor in grant decisions. Unlike the admissions policies in SFFA, which at least considered applicants on an individual basis, the Wisconsin grant program imposed an absolute racial classification that disqualified students solely based on race, national origin, or ancestry.
The Court also rejected HEAB’s argument that financial aid differs from admissions because it does not restrict classroom access. The Court reasoned that financial aid is still a zero-sum resource, and excluding students from consideration based on race necessarily disadvantages those who do not qualify. It further rejected the claim that race-based grants free up other financial aid for non-minority students, calling it speculative and unsupported by evidence.
Finally, the Court criticized the grant program for lacking a clear end point. SFFA held that all race-based policies must have a sunset provision to ensure that they do not become permanent fixtures of discrimination. The Wisconsin grant program had no such limitation and had remained in effect for nearly 40 years.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and declared the grant program unconstitutional, ordering HEAB to discontinue its administration.
Rabiebna v. Higher Educ. Aids Bd. (Ct.App. Feb. 26, 2025) 2025 Wisc. App. LEXIS 190.
Note: This decision underscores the increasing judicial scrutiny of race-based policies in education.