Current:Home > NewsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -Trailblazer Capital Learning
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-17 21:04:04
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! (99678)
Related
- Trump suggestion that Egypt, Jordan absorb Palestinians from Gaza draws rejections, confusion
- Grand jury indicts man for murder in shooting death of Texas girl during ATM robbery
- The Best Swimsuit Coverups on Amazon for All Your Future Beachy Vacations
- Khloe Kardashian Has Welcomed an Adorable New Member to the Family
- The FBI should have done more to collect intelligence before the Capitol riot, watchdog finds
- Tesla profits plunge as it grapples with slumping electric vehicle sales
- Untangling the Ongoing Feud Between Chris Brown and Quavo
- Untangling the Ongoing Feud Between Chris Brown and Quavo
- This was the average Social Security benefit in 2004, and here's what it is now
- Jill Biden praises her husband’s advocacy for the military as wounded vets begin annual bike ride
Ranking
- The Louvre will be renovated and the 'Mona Lisa' will have her own room
- Untangling the Ongoing Feud Between Chris Brown and Quavo
- Shohei Ohtani showcases the 'lightning in that bat' with hardest-hit homer of his career
- As romance scammers turn dating apps into hunting grounds, critics look to Match Group to do more
- Working Well: When holidays present rude customers, taking breaks and the high road preserve peace
- Attempt to expedite ethics probe of Minnesota state senator charged with burglary fails on tie vote
- Billionaire Texas oilman inks deal with Venezuela’s state-run oil giant as U.S. sanctions loom
- Family of man killed when Chicago police fired 96 times during traffic stop file wrongful death suit
Recommendation
FACT FOCUS: Inspector general’s Jan. 6 report misrepresented as proof of FBI setup
Grand jury indicts man for murder in shooting death of Texas girl during ATM robbery
Caitlin Clark set to sign massive shoe deal with Nike, according to reports
Where are the cicadas? Use this interactive map to find Brood XIX, Brood XIII in 2024
Newly elected West Virginia lawmaker arrested and accused of making terroristic threats
Golden Bachelor's Theresa Nist Shares Source of Joy Amid Gerry Turner Divorce
Kyle Rittenhouse, deadly shooter, college speaker? A campus gun-rights tour sparks outrage
'Them: The Scare': Release date, where to watch new episodes of horror anthology series