Current:Home > MyHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -LegacyBuild Academy
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-15 03:29:12
The Supreme Court decided 6-3 and 6-2 that race-conscious admission policies of the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution, effectively bringing to an end to affirmative action in higher education through a decision that will reverberate across campuses nationwide.
The rulings fell along ideological lines. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion for both cases, and Justice Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh wrote concurring opinions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has ties to Harvard and recused herself in that case, but wrote a dissent in the North Carolina case.
The ruling is the latest from the Supreme Court's conservative majority that has upended decades of precedent, including overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022.
- Read the full text of the decision
Here's how the justices split on the affirmative action cases:
Supreme Court justices who voted against affirmative action
The court's six conservatives formed the majority in each cases. Roberts' opinion was joined by Thomas, Samuel Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The chief justice wrote that Harvard and UNC's race-based admission guidelines "cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause."
"Respondents' race-based admissions systems also fail to comply with the Equal Protection Clause's twin commands that race may never be used as a 'negative' and that it may not operate as a stereotype," Roberts wrote. "The First Circuit found that Harvard's consideration of race has resulted in fewer admissions of Asian-American students. Respondents' assertion that race is never a negative factor in their admissions programs cannot withstand scrutiny. College admissions are zerosum, and a benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former at the expense of the latter. "
Roberts said that prospective students should be evaluated "as an individual — not on the basis of race," although universities can still consider "an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise."
Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold affirmative action
The court's three liberals all opposed the majority's decision to reject race as a factor in college admissions. Sotomayor's dissent was joined by Justice Elena Kagan in both cases, and by Jackson in the UNC case. Both Sotomayor and Kagan signed onto Jackson's dissent as well.
Sotomayor argued that the admissions processes are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrines a guarantee of racial equality," Sotomayor wrote. "The Court long ago concluded that this guarantee can be enforced through race-conscious means in a society that is not, and has never been, colorblind."
In her dissent in the North Carolina case, Jackson recounted the long history of discrimination in the U.S. and took aim at the majority's ruling.
"With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces 'colorblindness for all' by legal fiat," Jackson wrote. "But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life."
Melissa Quinn contributed to this report.
- In:
- Affirmative Action
- Supreme Court of the United States
veryGood! (46)
Related
- NFL Week 15 picks straight up and against spread: Bills, Lions put No. 1 seed hopes on line
- Probe into dozens of Connecticut state troopers finds 7 who ‘may have’ falsified traffic stop data
- Small plane crashes in Pennsylvania neighborhood. It’s not clear if there are any injuries
- Lionel Messi injured, on bench for Inter Miami match vs. Ronaldo's Al Nassr: Live updates
- Taylor Swift Eras Archive site launches on singer's 35th birthday. What is it?
- The Daily Money: Child tax credit to rise?
- Indiana legislation could hold back thousands of third graders who can’t read
- You might be way behind on the Oscars. Here's how you can catch up.
- Former Syrian official arrested in California who oversaw prison charged with torture
- Child’s body found in Colorado storage unit. Investigators want to make sure 2 other kids are safe
Ranking
- Appeals court scraps Nasdaq boardroom diversity rules in latest DEI setback
- Woman receives $135 compensation after UPS package containing son's remains goes missing
- Go Inside Botched Star Dr. Paul Nassif's Jaw-Dropping Bel-Air Mansion
- Take it from Jimmy Johnson: NFL coaches who rely too much on analytics play risky game
- Pressure on a veteran and senator shows what’s next for those who oppose Trump
- House approves expansion for the Child Tax Credit. Here's who could benefit.
- Francia Raisa Details Ups and Downs With Selena Gomez Amid Renewed Friendship
- Why the FTC is cracking down on location data brokers
Recommendation
A White House order claims to end 'censorship.' What does that mean?
'Black joy is contagious': Happiness for Black Americans is abundant, but disparities persist
No quick relief: Why Fed rate cuts won't make borrowing easier anytime soon
11-year-old boy shot after being chased in Atlanta; police search for 3 suspects
Gen. Mark Milley's security detail and security clearance revoked, Pentagon says
Who freed Flaco? One year later, eagle-owl’s escape from Central Park Zoo remains a mystery
New Hampshire House refuses to either further restrict or protect abortion rights
Taylor Swift's Travis Kelce-themed jewelry is surprisingly affordable. Here's where to buy