Yeah. Reading the opinion, it looks like SFFA only could make an argument via statistics and it failed to establish how those statistics related to reality. About 20-30 pages of the opinion are about comparing and contrasting Card and Acidiacono and honestly...it seems to me that both models are just inconclusive. Neither ends up taking into account what goes through the mind of an admissions officer and leaves out (what are arguably) critical components in an applicant's profile. In general, it does not seem there is a way for us to point to statistics and say "look...this is discrimination" there are human factors involved that are too complex (whether that be school support ratings, racial biases of interviewers/admissions officers, or just luck of the particular application cycles we have data on). I'm unsure whether the supreme court would take this case on...there doesn't seem to be much here that SFFA could argue in its favor.