OPINION AND ORDER Students for Fair Admissions (“Plaintiff” or “SFFA”) commenced this action on September 19, 2023 against the United States Military Academy at West Point (“West Point” or the “Academy”); the United States Department of Defense; Lloyd Austin, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; Christine Wormuth, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Army; Lieutenant General Steven Gilland, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy; and Lieutenant Colonel Rance Lee, in his official capacity as Director of Admissions for the United States Military Academy at West Point (collectively, “Defendants”).1 (Doc. 1, “Compl.”). Plaintiff presses a single claim for relief alleging that West Point’s admissions policy violates the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that West Point’s reliance on racial classifications in the admissions process fails to satisfy the strict scrutiny test as considered and applied in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (“Harvard”). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), which seeks an order “enjoining the defendants during the pendency of this action from considering race as a factor when making admissions decisions.” (Doc. 32). Plaintiff first filed its motion for a preliminary injunction on September 19, 2023, contemporaneous with the filing of the Complaint. (Doc. 6 — Doc. 10). After service of process was completed and on October 30, 2023, pursuant to the Court’s directives at a telephone conference on October 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proposed Order to Show Cause, which the Court subsequently entered as modified, together with a revised memorandum of law in support of its preliminary injunction motion. (Doc. 30; Doc. 31, “Pl. Br.”; Doc. 32). Defendants filed a memorandum of law in opposition, together with declarations and exhibits (Doc. 47, “Def. Br.”; Doc. 48 — Doc. 53), and the motion was fully submitted with the filing of Plaintiff’s reply brief and affidavit (Doc. 60, “Reply”; Doc. 61). On December 18, 2023, three days before appearing for oral argument on the motion, Plaintiff supplemented its motion with two additional declarations. (Doc. 68; Doc. 69).2, 3 The Court heard oral argument on December 21, 2023 (“Dec. 21, 2023 Tr.”). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED. BACKGROUND On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the race-based admissions policies of Harvard College (“Harvard”) and the University of North Carolina (“UNC”) violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court noted (in a footnote) in the majority opinion that “[t]he United States as amicus curiae contends that race-based admissions programs further compelling interests at our Nation’s military academies. No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.” Harvard, 600 U.S. at 213 n.4. Given that carveout in Harvard with respect to military academies, less than three months later, Plaintiff commenced the instant action against West Point, contending that West Point’s race-based admissions process violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection principles.4 Plaintiff calls upon this Court to enjoin, for the pendency of this action, West Point’s consideration of race in its admissions process. The Court, in order to properly frame the issue before it, summarizes below the allegations in the Complaint, and information taken from the various declarations and exhibits proffered on this motion concerning West Point and its admissions process, including its consideration of race in admissions. I. Becoming an Officer in the Army West Point was established in 1802 and prepares students to become leaders and officers in the United States Army. (Doc. 53, “McDonald Decl.” 7). To become an officer in the Army, an individual must (1) graduate from West Point; (2) attend a civilian college or university while participating in a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (“ROTC”) program; (3) attend Officer Candidate School after graduating from college; (4) receive a direct commission after earning a professional degree; or (5) advance through the enlisted ranks and then complete one of these officer training programs. (Def. Br. at 11 (citing McDonald Decl. 103 n.9)). Defendants emphasize that “West Point is a vital pipeline to the officer corps, and especially senior leadership, in the Armed Forces.” (Id. at 12 (citing Doc. 49, “Stitt Decl.”
38-40)). West Point is a significant source of officer commissions for the Army, historically providing approximately 20 percent of those commissions. (McDonald Decl. 9; Stitt Decl. 37). “West Point graduates comprise 33 percent of general officers in the Army” and almost 50 percent of the Army’s current four-star generals. (McDonald Decl. 9; Stitt Decl.
