Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Students for Fair Admissions and Naval Academy File Motion to Vacate Opinion Allowing Academy to Use Race in Admissions
Daily Signal ^ | July 01, 2025 | Cully Stimson, | Brooklynn Scott |

Posted on 07/02/2025 6:19:25 AM PDT by george76

Imagine judging a trial, ruling for one party, and writing a 179-page opinion, only to find the same parties asking you to vacate your opinion and dismiss the case six months later! That’s exactly what happened to the federal district court judge who presided over the trial in the Students for Fair Admissions v. The United States Naval Academy last year.

How We Got Here ..

In June 2023, the Supreme Court held that public and private colleges and universities could not use racial preferences in admissions because that violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, noted in a footnote that since the military service academies were not parties to the lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the opinion was not applicable to them “in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.”

...

In the fall of 2023, Students for Fair Admissions sued the Naval Academy in federal court alleging that the consideration of race or ethnicity in admissions at the academy violates the Constitution. To establish standing, Students for Fair Admissions represented Member D (a pseudonym), a white applicant who was otherwise qualified, but was denied admission to the Naval Academy.

The Trial ..

In December 2024, after a nine-day bench trial in a federal district court in Baltimore a few months earlier, Judge Richard D. Bennett ruled in favor of the Naval Academy, holding that the service academy could continue to use race in its admissions process as it was narrowly tailored to achieve what the Biden administration claimed was a compelling national security interest, namely “diversity.”

Bennett dedicated several pages of his opinion to the concept of judicial deference to the legislative and executive branches in military matters. The Supreme Court, according to Bennett, has treated the military “separate and apart from civilian institutions in at least three areas: (1) constitutional challenges; (2) military personnel policies; and (3) military justice.”

Bennett got one thing correct: “Military judgment is set by the President of the United States and not the federal judiciary.”

One of us (Cully Stimson) covered the trial in a three-part series, found here, here, and here. The thrust of the government’s argument centered on the wholly unsupported opinion of military leaders, some of whom testified as expert witnesses for the government, that a diverse military force is imperative to national security.

Under cross-examination, none of those witnesses were able to point to any peer-reviewed studies to prove their point, nor were they able to show that diverse units were more effective, efficient, or lethal than other units.

Worse than that, a key government expert witness reluctantly admitted under cross-examination that the federal government itself, and the Defense Department in particular, had failed to implement the recommendations from a 2011 congressionally mandated diversity commission that would have vastly increased the number of qualified minority applicants to the service academies, without the need to resort to using racial preferences (as we wrote here).

But those inconvenient facts seemingly didn’t matter to the judge.

The odd part of the entire trial was the fact that the service academies only provide about 18% of the officers across the services. Fully 82% of officers in the U.S. armed forces graduate from colleges other than the service academies, and those colleges and universities are prohibited from using race in admissions because of the Supreme Court’s decision in 2023.

At trial, lawyers for Students for Fair Admissions called several distinguished military officers as experts in their case-in-chief. One witness, retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. Dakota Woods, a Naval Academy graduate, was particularly impressive. He was a former employee of the renowned Dr. Andrew Marshall. Marshall was one of the most distinguished American defense and foreign policy experts in the last 100 years and head of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment—the think tank inside the Defense Department. Woods testified that not a single study existed showing a correlation between a diverse officer corps and lethality, retention, efficiency, or military readiness of our forces.

Woods (a former Heritage Foundation colleague) was right, and the government didn’t even try to rebut his testimony on cross-examination.

That too seemingly didn’t matter to the trial judge, who barely mentioned Woods’ testimony and didn’t even address the dearth of studies noted by Woods in his opinion.

Trump Takes Office ..

After President Donald Trump took office, he issued Executive Order 14185. Titled “Restoring America’s Fighting Force,” the executive order orders every element of our armed forces to “operate free from any preference based on race or sex.”

Shortly after Executive Order 14185 was issued, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a memorandum to the entire Department of Defense on Jan. 29, titled “Restoring America’s Fighting Force.” In it, he emphasized that because DOD’s mission is “to win the Nation’s wars,” it is imperative to “have a lethal fighting force that rewards individual initiative, excellence, and hard work based on merit.”

Hegseth noted that a “foundational tenet of the DOD must be that the most qualified individuals are placed in positions of responsibility in accordance with merit-based, colorblind policies.” To that end, Hegseth found that diversity, equity, and inclusion policies “are incompatible with the values of DOD.”

Hegseth followed up that DOD-wide memorandum with a military service academy-specific order on May 9 titled “Certification of Merit-Based Military Service Academy Admissions.”

It directed the secretaries of the military departments to certify that for purposes of the 2026 military service academies’ admissions cycle, as well as all future admissions cycles, their respective admissions’ offices will not consider race, ethnicity, or sex during the selection process and that offers of admissions will be based “exclusively on merit.”

Failure to focus exclusively on merit, Hegseth said, “erodes lethality, our warfighting readiness, and undercuts the culture of readiness in our Armed Forces.”

The military judgment of Trump, and expanded upon by the secretary of defense, could not be clearer.

Erasing Bennett’s Decision ...

One would think that and order from Trump and Hegseth would settle the matter, and in one sense, it has. The military service academies must follow the lawful orders of the commander in chief and the secretary of defense. Hegseth’s order not to use race in admissions is a lawful order, so it must be followed. Failure to follow a lawful order is a criminal offense in the military.

But that’s only a short-term fix to the issue. That still leaves the existence of Bennett’s judgment and opinion in place for others to rely upon as settled law in the future.

So, earlier this month, after Member D was admitted to the Naval Academy, it filed a joint motion with Students for Fair Admissions to dismiss the court’s judgment and opinion for two main reasons:

First, since Member D was admitted to the Naval Academy and planned to matriculate, the case was moot.

Second, since the military judgment of the Trump administration is that diversity is a not compelling national security interest and does not contribute to lethality, that calls into question the very deference Bennett relied upon to justify, in large part, his opinion.

The joint motion makes several representations, including:

The consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions at the Naval Academy does not promote cohesiveness, lethality, recruitment, retention, legitimacy, national security, or any other governmental interest.

Recruiting and promoting individuals based on merit alone, and not based on their immutable characteristics, improves unit cohesion and performance.

The recruitment, retention, and legitimacy of the U.S. military is not positively affected by the service academies’ consideration of race in admissions.

Merit-only admissions practices increase the legitimacy of the U.S. military.

Race-based admissions practices at the Naval Academy do not support any valid military interest. The representations were chosen carefully, as they represented the mirror-opposite of the rationale in Bennett’s opinion.

On to West Point and the Air Force Academy ..

Assuming Bennett swallows his pride and follows the law, he should grant the joint motion to vacate his judgment and opinion and dismiss the case. Once he does so, his opinion cannot be cited or relied upon in the future.

However, Students for Fair Admissions has sued the United States Military Academy at West Point and the United States Air Force Academy to prohibit them from using race in admissions. They are not using race in admissions now given Hegseth’s order, but those lawsuits are still out there. We look forward to seeing what the Justice Department will do with those cases.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War
KEYWORDS: academy; airforce; airforceacademy; military; navalacademy; navy; usna; westpoint

1 posted on 07/02/2025 6:19:25 AM PDT by george76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: george76

Racism. Enough is enough.


2 posted on 07/02/2025 6:28:47 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

You can’t end racism by using racism.


3 posted on 07/02/2025 6:36:59 AM PDT by libertylover (The HBM (Has Been Media) is almost all AGENDA-DRIVEN, not-truth driven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

Now see here:

https://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Connerly-retiring-as-UC-regent-leaves-2704643.php


4 posted on 07/02/2025 6:50:49 AM PDT by sasquatch (Do NOT forget Ashli Babbit! c/o piytar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

Entry into the USNA was through an appointment by your congressman in the 60s and 70s. My oldest brother went there and that was a tough process both academically and physically. When did this all change?


5 posted on 07/02/2025 7:07:36 AM PDT by DownInFlames (P)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
Racial and gender preferences have been going on at Navy for a very long time. I witnessed it first hand.

Now, I will say that conservatives are talking a bit out of both sides of their mouths on this. On the one hand, we (rightfully) denigrate the idea of "studies" and "experts" as being necessary to prove things that are common sense. But here, we're advancing the argument that because there aren't any "studies" or "experts" saying that diversity makes units better, the argument has to be rejected. That's inconsistent.

I do think -- based purely on military experience in units -- that it is a good idea to have at least some minority officers when such a high percentage of troops are minorities. That's kind of a common sense thing that a lot of officers understand.

BUT...the article correctly points out that the vast majority of officers don't come from the service academies, but rather from ROTC and other sources. So there is absolutely no reason to lower standards for minorities to go to the service academies just to attain some level of racial representation among the officer cadre.

Academy admissions should be strictly merit-based. It is worth pointing out that things other than grades have always mattered in admissions, and that includes athletics. So, athletes of any race are going to get a bit of a 'boost" when it comes to admissions. But certainly, getting rid of purely raced-based admissions can be done without harming either the mission of the academies or the military services themselves.

6 posted on 07/02/2025 7:49:07 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames
Entry into the USNA was through an appointment by your congressman in the 60s and 70s. My oldest brother went there and that was a tough process both academically and physically. When did this all change?

Not quite.

Members of Congress nominate people to be considered for admission, and they can give up to (generally) 10 nominations. The Academies themselves then evaluate nominees to determine which will be given actual appointments. You usually have about 10,000 total nominees for approximately 1200 slots in a class. A given member of Congress may see zero, one, or more than one of their nominees actually given appointments.

Racial and gender preferences have existed for a long time, and not just in admissions. Things like being placed on Academic Review, and potentially getting kicked out for any number of reasons, have always been impacted by those "other" considerations.

I imagine that will change now.

7 posted on 07/02/2025 7:56:30 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames

It didn’t. You still need a congressional nomination (or, if a military dependent, a Presidential nomination), but that’s not a guarantee (my eyesight kept me out of USAFA even with a Presidential).

Colonel, USAF JAGC (Ret)


8 posted on 07/02/2025 8:03:59 AM PDT by jagusafr ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames

By 1976.


9 posted on 07/02/2025 8:06:04 AM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

How did eyesight keep you out of the AFA?


10 posted on 07/02/2025 8:06:56 AM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Minimum acuity is 20/70 combined, and mine was 20/15 right eye and 20/200 left eye. Their assumption was that every academy grad wanted to be a fighter pilot.

jagusafr


11 posted on 07/02/2025 8:12:26 AM PDT by jagusafr ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

I had 20/70, and my scheduled class of ‘87 (didn’t decide to go though) were almost all fighter pilots. Only 25% went to pilot training after graduation.


12 posted on 07/02/2025 9:05:16 AM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames; Liz; Red Badger; Kaslin; BenLurkin; SunkenCiv
Yes, Congressional selection for candidates from each District, from each state for Senators, continues. (There are a few other options, but these two are the most common by far.)

Once all of the Representatives and Senators have submitted their candidates, THEN the academies chose their entering class from that group. So, when the academies are using racial and sexual quotas to chose from a group, then the various Reps and Senators will “naturally” pre-select their nominees FOR those quotas and those goals.

Only AFTER there are no REAL OR IMAGINED quotas limiting the academy selection , then the various representatives will begin choosing the highest quality nominees.

BUT! Each individual Congressman/Congresscritter staff WILL naturally carry forward their own prejudices DESPITE the official academy criteria. Often, IN SPITE OF the official criteria. And, every member of the academy selection committee will privately carry their own prejudices forward - PARTICULARLY the prejudices and hatred of some selection members who hate the Trump administration policy.

13 posted on 07/02/2025 9:16:35 AM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (Method, motive, and opportunity: No morals, shear madness and hatred by those who cheat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

That’s pretty standard in my experience - but “they” wanted perfect physical specimens coming in.


14 posted on 07/02/2025 9:38:56 AM PDT by jagusafr ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: george76

Statements, rulings, orders, etc. mean nothing unless you can enforce. This behavior is illegal and is not being done by an institution, it is being done by individuals working in the institution.
Wanna make a change? Name the criminal arseholes and put them in jail. Otherwise, quit the circus.


15 posted on 07/02/2025 9:43:32 AM PDT by bobbo666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames

“Entry into the USNA was through an appointment by your congressman in the 60s and 70s.” Still in effect. My granddaughter just graduated and she was appointed by her congressman.


16 posted on 07/02/2025 9:50:17 AM PDT by UB355 (slow traffic stay right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: george76; bgill; libertylover; sasquatch; DownInFlames; Bruce Campbells Chin; jagusafr; CodeToad; ..
The judge appears to have had superior qualifications to make this judgment, including many years' National Guard and Reserve service and former chairmanship of his state's Republican party, plus many awards for merit. That he favored the unstudied and unproven “diversity is our strength” reasoning goes to show how deeply the diversity brainwashing has affected otherwise intelligent and responsible people.

RICHARD D. BENNETT, Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

17 posted on 07/02/2025 1:03:11 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (Think about it: The Supreme Court is nine lawyers appointed for life by politicians. —David Horowitz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; Bockscar; BraveMan; cardinal4; ...

18 posted on 07/03/2025 11:48:15 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (The moron troll Ted Holden believes that humans originated on Ganymede.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson