Current:Home > reviewsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -FutureFinance
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-18 17:30:32
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! (498)
Related
- Dick Vitale announces he is cancer free: 'Santa Claus came early'
- U.S. appeals court ruling leaves open possibility of college athletes being considered employees
- Lawsuit filed in case of teen who died after eating spicy chip as part of online challenge
- Celebs at Wimbledon 2024: See Queen Camilla, Dave Grohl, Lena Dunham and more
- Trump suggestion that Egypt, Jordan absorb Palestinians from Gaza draws rejections, confusion
- Report: NBA media rights deal finalized with ESPN, Amazon, NBC. What to know about megadeal
- It's National Kitten Day! Watch the cutest collection of kitten tales
- Powerball winning numbers for July 10: Jackpot rises to $41 million
- Trump invites nearly all federal workers to quit now, get paid through September
- In the South, Sea Level Rise Accelerates at Some of the Most Extreme Rates on Earth
Ranking
- IRS recovers $4.7 billion in back taxes and braces for cuts with Trump and GOP in power
- Fewer Americans apply for jobless claims last week as labor market remains sturdy
- Dancing With the Stars' Brooke Burke Details Really Disappointing Exit as Co-Host
- England vs. Netherlands highlights: Ollie Watkins goal at the death sets up Euro 2024 final
- Federal hiring is about to get the Trump treatment
- The Daily Money: Can you afford to retire?
- Sen. Bob Menendez bribery case one step closer to jury deliberations as closing arguments wrap up
- England vs. Netherlands highlights: Ollie Watkins goal at the death sets up Euro 2024 final
Recommendation
Small twin
Convert to a Roth IRA or not? It's an important retirement question facing Gen X.
Uruguay players and Colombia fans fight in stands after Copa America semifinal
It's National Kitten Day! Watch the cutest collection of kitten tales
Biden administration makes final diplomatic push for stability across a turbulent Mideast
Restaurants in LA, Toronto get business boost from Drake and Kendrick Lamar spat
Wheel of (shrinking) fortune: How game-show prizes have lagged behind inflation
Hakeem Jeffries to bring Democrats' concerns to Biden about his campaign