According to this article in The Boston Globe, one reason Harvard won its affirmative action defense in the suit launched by Students for Fair Admissions was that they presented testimony from African-American and Hispanic students to the effect that their admission to Harvard was tremendously beneficial to them.
To combat the statistically heavy case presented by two experts from Students for Fair Admissions, eight black, Latino, and Asian-American Harvard students and alumni took the stand to share their personal stories of making it to Harvard and the benefits of using race in admissions. Students for Fair Admissions [SFA] did not call any students or present any cases of applicants who were specifically disadvantaged by Harvard’s admissions process.
Apparently, by implication, the Students for Fair Admissions [SFA] lost in part because they didn't send a parade of students to the stand to testify that not being admitted to Harvard hurt them.
There's a good reason, I suspect.
The hypothetical, potential value-added from going to Harvard for those on the cusp but not admitted to Harvard would likely have been negligible. They almost surely went to other high- or possibly even higher-quality schools and ended up doing, roughly and on average, just as well as they would have done had they been admitted to Harvard. The SFA apparently presented no evidence that these students were harmed, undoubtedly because the value-added of attending Harvard is minimal for bright, capable students, relative to their next-best options.
This same argument should also be reversed and applied to all the students who were racially favoured by affirmative action at Harvard. If they, too, were bright and capable students then they would also likely have ended up attending some other high- or even higher-quality university. The enormous benefits to which they testified were almost surely not all due to having attended Harvard.
The Harvard defense team's strategy, at least in this regard worked, in part, because it is difficult to argue the counterfactual in court.
Let me add, though, that weighing the benefits to those who gained admission versus the losses suffered by those denied admission is the wrong approach. Racial discrimination is morally wrong, and here's hoping Harvard loses on appeal.