Kennedy School of Government students ADAN D. BRIONES (left), and DARON K. ROBERTS (right) camp out outside the Supreme Court building to get seats for oral arguments of the affirmative action case.

WASHINGTON—Harvard played a visible role both inside and outside of a packed Supreme Court yesterday when justices heard oral arguments in a pair of landmark affirmative action cases.

Justices and attorneys referred to Harvard studies showing the benefits of affirmative action in higher education and to the Harvard undergraduate admissions plan—which uses race as one factor in deciding whether to accept an applicant.

While the attorneys delivered their oral arguments, about 50 Harvard students joined thousands of others to rally outside of the building in support of affirmative action. Three others camped outside the Court for two nights to nab coveted seats inside for yesterday’s arguments.

The cases—Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger—involved white applicants to the University of Michigan’s law school and undergraduate programs who claim they were denied admission as a result of affirmative action policies which they call unconstitutional.

Yesterday’s oral arguments marked the first time the Court has considered race-conscious programs in higher education since the 1978 University of California Regents v. Bakke case, when the court struck down the use of quotas but permitted the use of race as one factor in admissions.

In that case, Harvard’s undergraduate admissions policy was cited as a model.

Harvard once again returned to the spotlight.

“I gather this case is not simply about public universities,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “This case is as much about Harvard as it is about Michigan.”

Inside the Courtroom

The Court set aside one hour for each case, but throughout the oral arguments the justices’ questions and attorneys’ remarks addressed a handful of similar concerns.

The first hour featured the case brought by Barbara Grutter, who was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School in 1997 when she applied at age 43 with a 3.8 GPA and an LSAT score of 161 out of 180 possible points.

Michigan’s law school has said it considers race as one factor in admissions.

During the second hour, lawyers argued the case of Jennifer Gratz, a Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and an ACT score of 25 out of 36 possible points who was rejected from Michigan’s undergraduate program in 1995.

The undergraduate program uses a 150-point system to rate applicants in its admissions decisions, in which minorities, athletes or economically disadvantaged students receive 20 points.

When Kirk O. Kolbo, the attorney representing Grutter and Gratz, began his oral argument at 10 a.m., Justice Sandra Day O’Connor—widely considered to be one of the swing votes—quickly interrupted, noting that when a school receives “thousands of applications for just a few slots...inherent in that setting is making choices about which students to admit.”