BALTIMORE — Does the Constitution permit two different policies on affirmative action in college admissions — one for the military academies, like Annapolis and West Point, and the other for civilian schools? That is, should, say, Annapolis be allowed to continue to use race in its admissions process on the basis that maintaining a racially diverse navy is a matter of national security? 

That’s the question being weighed by a federal district court judge in Maryland, after closing arguments, this morning in a case brought against the United States Naval Academy. The case is being levied by the same group — Students for Fair Admissions — that toppled — at least constitutionally — affirmative action at Harvard and other American colleges and universities.

Closing arguments today marked the end of the two-week bench trial over the Annapolis-based academy’s admissions process. The federal judge overseeing the case, Richard Bennett, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2003, said that he would deliver a decision in between six weeks and seven weeks. Whatever the outcome of his ruling, an appeal is likely. 

The case was brought by Students for Fair Admissions after the Supreme Court sided against Harvard to produce a landmark ruling that race-based affirmative action programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

That case, along with the group’s companion case against the University of North Carolina, effectively barred universities from using race as a factor in admissions decisions. The Supreme Court, however, opted to exclude service academies from the decision because of their “potentially distinct interests.” Students for Fair Admissions, in suits against Annapolis and West Point, seeks to extend the ruling.

“Heroism and the commitment to serve does not rely on race,” an attorney for Students for Fair Admissions, Patrick Strawbridge, said on Thursday, adding that using race as a factor in the admissions process is “not justified, not needed, and not narrowly tailored.” 

Mr. Strawbridge argued during his nearly hour-long address that the Naval academy had not adhered to the “strict scrutiny” requirements of race-based classifications. The academy, he said, “doesn’t know how it started” to use race in the admissions process nor does it “know when it will stop.”

The attorney also pointed to the military’s stated desire for its cohort to reflect the relative racial makeup of the nation as evidence of “racial balancing” and questioned whether such a goal is even attainable given that the demographics of the nation are constantly in flux. 

Students for Fair Admissions further charged that the academy “doesn’t even know why” it’s using race — emphasizing the lack of empirical evidence to support that diversity improves military performance — and yet, has still not adequately assessed alternative approaches. 

The defense, however, maintained that military academies have distinct objectives from regular universities and should not be subject to the same rules. The lawyer representing the Naval Academy, Catherine Yang, began her closing remarks by emphasizing the “human dimension” of the military, noting that “people make war” and that “this case is not Harvard.” 

Assembling a racially diverse officer corps, she argued, is important for fostering cohesion, recruiting top talent, increasing retention, and supporting the “legitimacy” of the navy. Those arguments were voiced by a former Navy SEAL commander, Captain Jason Birch, who, earlier in the week, spoke to his experiences as a Black officer. As a result, she said, allowing the military to apply race-based admissions considerations is “a compelling security interest.” 

Ms. Yang also defended the academy’s use of race classifications, claiming that the school “absolutely does not use race in isolation” and that race does not dictate whether or not a candidate is viewed as “qualified.” She countered the plaintiff’s claims that the academy racially balances the class and insisted that they do not impose racial quotas. 

The defense concluded by returning to an argument at the heart of their case: “The military is the one to make judgments about how best to run the military.” 

Though before the hearing was adjourned, Judge Bennett offered both parties remarkable praise for their civility and decorum throughout the proceedings. He told both teams of lawyers that he was “enormously impressed” by their handling of the case amid so much “polarization.” 

“You should all be very proud,” he said.