Current:Home > ContactHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -NextGenWealth
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-27 23:13:43
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! (7)
Related
- Kylie Jenner Shows Off Sweet Notes From Nieces Dream Kardashian & Chicago West
- 1 person killed and 5 wounded including a police officer in an Indianapolis shooting, police say
- This Size-Inclusive Jumpsuit is on Sale for Just $25 During Amazon's Big Spring Sale
- Scottsdale police shoot, kill armed suspect in stolen vehicle who opened fire during traffic stop
- Arkansas State Police probe death of woman found after officer
- Kansas started at No. 1 and finished March Madness with a second-round loss. What went wrong?
- Barn collapse kills 1 man, injures another in southern Illinois
- Barn collapse kills 1 man, injures another in southern Illinois
- Federal Spending Freeze Could Have Widespread Impact on Environment, Emergency Management
- Shop Sleek & Stylish Humidifiers on Amazon's Big Spring Sale -- Save up to 55% off
Ranking
- Are Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp down? Meta says most issues resolved after outages
- Can ChatGPT do my taxes? Chatbots won't replace human expertise any time soon
- Deadly attack on Moscow concert hall shakes Russian capital and sows doubts about security
- Elmo advises people to hum away their frustrations and anger in new video on mental health
- At site of suspected mass killings, Syrians recall horrors, hope for answers
- What a Thrill! See the Cast of Troop Beverly Hills Then and Now
- Ilia Malinin nails six quadruple jumps and leads US team's stunning performance at worlds
- Former gaming executive sentenced to death in poisoning of billionaire Netflix producer in China
Recommendation
Man can't find second winning lottery ticket, sues over $394 million jackpot, lawsuit says
Women's March Madness games today: Schedule, how to watch Saturday's NCAA Tournament
Pharmacist and her license were targeted by scammers. How to avoid becoming a victim.
King Charles III and Princess Kate have cancer. What they've said, what to know
The Louvre will be renovated and the 'Mona Lisa' will have her own room
These 12 Amazon Deals Are All 60% Off (Or More): $20 Adidas Pants, $10 Maidenform Bras, And More
Princess Kate, King Charles have cancer: A timeline of the royal family's biggest moments
Mifepristone access is coming before the US Supreme Court. How safe is this abortion pill?