Lacking Definitive Ruling on Affirmative Action, Both Sides Claim Victory Ben Sklar for The New York Times Students and visitors on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin on Monday. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's decision to send a thorny affirmative action case back to the lower courts for additional review left both sides claiming victory on Monday. Civil rights groups that favor race-conscious admissions cheered the ruling, arguing that the court had upheld its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. That decision supported the principle that states have a compelling interest in achieving student diversity but required that any plan to include race as a factor in admissions should be subjected to strong scrutiny. "We're gratified that the court has essentially upheld that framework," said Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Edward Blum, the man who has been the driving force behind the challenge to the University of Texas at Austin ruled on by the court, scoffed at the claims of a victory from groups that support affirmative action. "If they are excited about this ruling," he said, "I think it's gravely misplaced." The decision, Mr. Blum said, "begins the restoration of the original colorblind principles to our nation's civil rights laws," and will both hasten the end of racial preferences in schools across the nation and unleash a flood of lawsuits. Under the justices" requirement that racial distinctions in admissions be subjected to a tough constitutional test, he said, "it is very unlikely that most institutions will be able to overcome these hurdles." Experts without a strong stake in the case said that neither side should feel fully triumphant, and that the issue was far from resolved. "For supporters of affirmative action, I'd put it in the category of disaster averted rather than victory achieved," said David A. Strauss, a law professor at the University of Chicago. He said a trial, potentially followed by another round of appeals, could mean the case will remain in the spotlight for years. "It looks like the case has to turn on the specific facts," he said. The court really wants the lower courts to get deep into it, and that suggests a trial. Major state universities reacted cautiously, with most either declining to comment or saying they were still trying to make sense of the ruling. Administrators said that the decision would have no effect for now, but that the case - and the issue - was not dead. "Prior to this particular ruling, every university in the country was already thinking about all of the alternatives, depending on the outcome of the case, and about how to prove whether a policy is working," said Joanne E. Berg, vice provost for enrollment at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I don't think that should change, and I don't think it will. How much has actually changed with Monday's decision is questionable, said Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine. While the tone of the opinion in the Fisher v. University of Texas case written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is tougher than that of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion in the 2003 Grutter case, "in terms of the law it always has been established that strict scrutiny requires proof that no less discriminatory alternative can suffice," he said. So while Mr. Chemerinsky expects to see more litigation against state universities, "I don't think it will be a "floodgates" because this case changed so little, and the real issue will be what happens on remand and when it gets back to the Supreme Court." The Texas plan, however, may not survive, said Vinay Harpalani, a visiting assistant professor of law at the Chicago-Kent College of Law at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Because previous votes at the Court of Appeals were close, he noted, the tougher review could lead the district court or the Fifth Circuit to strike down the Texas policy. Eight states have already banned consideration of race in admissions to their public colleges: Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Washington, though Michigan's law has been suspended by a court ruling and will be weighed by the Supreme Court later this year. Meanwhile, Abigail Fisher, the young woman who sued the University of Texas, said, "I'm just very honored and grateful to have participated in this." With a diffident smile, she spoke at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, alongside Mr. Blum and her parents. "I am very confident U.T. won't be able to use race as a factor in admissions in the future," she said. The lesson Ms. Fisher learned from the experience of taking a case all the way to the Supreme Court? "Stick by your ideals, even if it means some personal sacrifice," she said. William Powers Jr., the president of the University of Texas at Austin, said that the university would continue to defend its policy, because a diverse student body "prepares young people for life in an increasingly global society." The ruling, he said, "has no impact on admissions decisions we have already made or any immediate impact on our holistic admissions policy." John Schwartz reported from Washington, and Richard Pérez-Peña from New York.