As the fight over diversity-oriented postsecondary strategies like race-conscious admissions (commonly known as affirmative action) continues to play out in the courts with new legal cases, it is critical to better understand the ways policy actors in this arena are leveraging social science research and other types of sources in their organized and collective efforts to inform legal decision-making on this topic. To this end, this study examines how amici, seeking to shape educational and diversity-related policy via the legal arena, use research and other types of extra-legal sources to support their arguments in the most recently decided legal case on this issue, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Findings show that amici serve as translators of research to the court by citing extra-legal sources that advance arguments broadly aligned with the legal framework in the case: the strict scrutiny test and its two elements (compelling interest and narrow tailoring). Findings further show that amici serve as users of research themselves, citing extra-legal sources to advance arguments that push on the boundaries of the legal framework in important ways. By leveraging some types of sources over others to support those arguments, they do so in ideologically aligned and/or strategically organized ways. In addition to the theoretical understandings of research use in law, findings have implications for researchers to consider in ongoing litigation over race-conscious admissions, including the production of diversity-related research that answers legal questions and the role ideology and political maneuvering may play in these efforts.