In June, the U.S. Supreme Court brought to a close the country's decades-long experiment in affirmative action in a pair of closely watched cases--"Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College" and "Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina"--and overturned the use of racial preferences in higher-education admissions. In previous cases concerning race-conscious admissions, the Court relied on amicus briefs to inform its decision. Therefore, it is important to analyze the authors of amicus briefs and how they had hoped to influence the Court this time. While almost two-thirds of Americans oppose the use of an applicant's race or ethnicity as a factor in the college admissions process, it is notable that 83.5% of the advocacy groups that were amici in "Students for Fair Admissions" lobbied in support of racial preferences. Most of the amicus briefs submitted in these landmark cases did not reflect ordinary Americans' views, which begs the question: Is the Court being misled about public opinion by advocacy groups in other policy areas, too?