A federal judge on Friday ruled that the U.S. Naval Academy may continue considering race as a factor in its admissions, the latest decision in a closely watched legal battle over affirmative action at selective colleges and universities across the country.

Students for Fair Admissions, an anti-affirmative action group that won landmark 2023 victories at the U.S. Supreme Court against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, sued the Naval Academy, alleging the Annapolis-based military school’s efforts to boost minority enrollment were unconstitutional and discriminate against white applicants.

District Court Judge Richard Bennett, however, determined that “the U.S. Naval Academy is distinct” from the civilian universities that lost last year at the Supreme Court. “Its mission is to prepare its students to become officers in the Navy and Marine Corps,” he wrote in a 179-page opinion.

Bennett added that judges have a long-standing history of deferring to the other branches on military policy. “Quite simply, this Court defers to the executive branch with respect to military personnel decisions,” he wrote.

Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions, said in a statement that the group was “disappointed by the Court’s opinion” and vowed to appeal.

“It is our hope that the U.S. military academies ultimately will be compelled to follow the Supreme Court’s prohibition of race in college admissions,” he said.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority included a footnote in its 2023 rulings exempting military academies because of their “potentially distinct interests” — though it left the door open to future legal challenges.

Months later, Students for Fair Admissions filed lawsuits against both the Naval Academy and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, attempting to resolve the issue of race-conscious admissions at those institutions.

During a nearly two-week bench trial in September, lawyers from the Department of Justice called it a “national security imperative” for military leaders to reflect the racial diversity of the country. They argued diversity promotes unit cohesion, aids in efforts to recruit and retain talent, and bolsters the military’s legitimacy at home and around the world.

Bennett, a 2003 appointee of former President George W. Bush who served in the U.S. Army Reserve and Maryland National Guard, echoed those arguments.

“The Academy has tied its use of race to the realization of an officer corps that represents the country it protects and the people it leads,” he wrote. “The Academy has proven that this national security interest is indeed measurable and that its admissions program is narrowly tailored to meet that interest.”

At trial, attorneys for Students for Fair Admissions claimed race has nothing to do with a military’s effectiveness. Instead, factors like leadership skills, tactical proficiency and resources were more important, they said.

The group argued that the Naval Academy’s admissions policies were similar to those the Supreme Court struck down. It claimed the Naval Academy was “balancing” the number of applicants it admitted from racial groups each year. And it accused the school of favoring minority applicants over white applicants with better qualifications.

Bennett disagreed. “The U.S. Naval Academy does not set any racial quotas or engage in racial balancing in its admissions process,” he wrote. “No candidate for admission is admitted based solely on his or her race.”

The Naval Academy accepted 9% of over 15,000 applicants for its latest class of midshipmen, placing it among the nation’s most selective institutions. At trial, its lawyers argued that race already plays a limited role in the school’s admissions. A number of other factors, including socioeconomic background, leadership potential, academic achievement, physical fitness and life experiences, are also considered.

Of the Naval Academy’s 1,183 current first-year students, also known as plebes, 642 are white, 178 are Hispanic, 132 are Asian American and 70 are African American. Another 137 are multiracial or multi-ethnic.

The Naval Academy’s Dean of Admissions Bruce Latta testified that without race-conscious admissions policies, the number of minority students would “drop dramatically.” Many selective colleges and universities, including Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, have already seen a decline in Black enrollment since the Supreme Court’s 2023 rulings.

A number of civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Black Military Women and the Legal Defense Fund, filed amicus briefs supporting the Naval Academy’s case.

In a statement, Leah Watson, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program, hailed the ruling for recognizing “the importance of diversity in shaping leaders who can effectively respond to the complex global challenges our nation faces.”

Latia Suttle, national public relations officer of the National Association of Black Military Women, added, “For decades, Black service members — especially Black women — have faced systemic barriers in the military that limit their advancement and visibility. Today’s ruling is a reaffirmation that the military’s strength lies in its diversity, and that a diverse leadership is essential to fostering an environment where all service members can thrive.”

Friday’s decision is important because of the “racial tension” that the military has experienced “over decades,” said Michaele Turnage Young, LDF senior counsel and co-manager of the Equal Protection Initiative.

“The military concluded that all of that unrest, having to do with racial tension, actually could lead to mission failure and a loss of life,” Turnage Young said. “It has been severe enough that it has threatened domestic and international legitimacy.”

Because of that, Turnage Young said, affirmative action has been important to military institutions.

“The lack of representation of certain portions of the population in the officer corps has led to all sorts of problems, including perceptions of racial minorities as serving as a cannon fodder for white military leaders,” she said. “So the military concluded that there is a national security interest in having a diverse officer corps because it furthers unit cohesion and lethality, recruitment and retention, and also it enhances the Navy and Marine Corps domestic and international legitimacy.”