Current:Home > ScamsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -BeyondWealth Learning
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-18 15:02:03
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! (434)
Related
- Jamie Foxx gets stitches after a glass is thrown at him during dinner in Beverly Hills
- The U.S. economy ended 2022 on a high note. This year is looking different
- Global Climate Panel’s Report: No Part of the Planet Will be Spared
- Yeah, actually, your plastic coffee pod may not be great for the climate
- DeepSeek: Did a little known Chinese startup cause a 'Sputnik moment' for AI?
- Indicators of the Week: tips, eggs and whisky
- The Essential Advocate, Philippe Sands Makes the Case for a New International Crime Called Ecocide
- Inside Clean Energy: With a Pen Stroke, New Law Launches Virginia Into Landmark Clean Energy Transition
- Gen. Mark Milley's security detail and security clearance revoked, Pentagon says
- The $16 Million Was Supposed to Clean Up Old Oil Wells; Instead, It’s Going to Frack New Ones
Ranking
- McKinsey to pay $650 million after advising opioid maker on how to 'turbocharge' sales
- Shop the Cutest Travel Pants That Aren't Sweatpants or Leggings
- Save $95 on a Shark Multi-Surface Cleaner That Vacuums and Mops Floors at the Same Time
- Find 15 Gifts for the Reader in Your Life in This Book Lover Starter Pack
- Residents worried after ceiling cracks appear following reroofing works at Jalan Tenaga HDB blocks
- Inside Clean Energy: 6 Things Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the Humans’ Gets Wrong
- Ex-staffer sues Fox News and former Trump aide over sexual abuse claims
- Six Takeaways About Tropical Cyclones and Hurricanes From The New IPCC Report
Recommendation
John Galliano out at Maison Margiela, capping year of fashion designer musical chairs
Hollywood actors agree to federal mediation with strike threat looming
How Dying Forests and a Swedish Teenager Helped Revive Germany’s Clean Energy Revolution
Larry Nassar was stabbed after making a lewd comment watching Wimbledon, source says
The White House is cracking down on overdraft fees
3 dead, multiple people hurt in Greyhound bus crash on Illinois interstate highway ramp
Senators slam Ticketmaster over bungling of Taylor Swift tickets, question breakup
Inside Clean Energy: Unpacking California’s Controversial New Rooftop Solar Proposal