The U.S. Supreme Court released a mixed decision on two landmark affirmative action cases, striking down the use of a point system for race in the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions in a 6-3 decision while upholding the law school’s broader use of race in admissions in a 5-4 decision.

The rulings in the two cases, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, the first significant test of affirmative action in higher education since the high court’s 1978 Bakke ruling, reaffirms the importance of a diverse educational environment, despite the finding that objective point systems are unconstitutional.

Georgetown University submitted an amicus brief supporting the University of Michigan in the case. In Supreme Court cases, parties with legal expertise can submit a brief of amici curiae, or “friends of the court,” to highlight additional arguments supporting either side.

“I am pleased that the Court appears to have recognized the importance of supporting the goal of diversity in higher education,” University President John J. DeGioia said in a university press release.

The cases involved white students who argued that they weren’t admitted to undergraduate and law school programs due to the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policies.

Although the ruling does not directly affect Georgetown University, as the University of Michigan is a public school, the nature of the cases challenge the 14th amendment. Title VI, the federal statute for universities that receive federal aid, is interpreted consistently with the amendment.

Georgetown University and its students have been active in supporting the University of Michigan. Georgetown Law Center students received nearly 14,000 signatures from law students nationwide on a separate brief submitted in February.

“A richly diverse student body is particularly critical to achieving Georgetown’s unique educational mission as a Catholic and Jesuit university,” DeGioia said. “As has long been our practice, Georgetown will continue to work toward this goal consistent with the logic and spirit of the Court’s ruling.”