Current:Home > NewsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -Blueprint Wealth Network
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-24 19:56:52
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! (5177)
Related
- Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow owns a $3 million Batmobile Tumbler
- The Pence-Harris Showdown Came up Well Short of an Actual ‘Debate’ on Climate Change
- Headphone Flair Is the Fashion Tech Trend That Will Make Your Outfit
- Why Nick Cannon Thought There Was No Way He’d Have 12 Kids
- Behind on your annual reading goal? Books under 200 pages to read before 2024 ends
- The RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars Cast Reveals Makeup Hacks Worthy of a Crown
- Battered, Flooded and Submerged: Many Superfund Sites are Dangerously Threatened by Climate Change
- Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace Campaign for a Breakup Between Big Tech and Big Oil
- Who are the most valuable sports franchises? Forbes releases new list of top 50 teams
- NYC nurses are on strike, but the problems they face are seen nationwide
Ranking
- Charges tied to China weigh on GM in Q4, but profit and revenue top expectations
- Kate Spade 24-Hour Flash Deal: Get This $300 Crossbody Bag for Just $59
- RHONJ Fans Won't Believe the Text Andy Cohen Got From Bo Dietl After Luis Ruelas Reunion Drama
- The precarity of the H-1B work visa
- Newly elected West Virginia lawmaker arrested and accused of making terroristic threats
- Father drowns in pond while trying to rescue his two daughters in Maine
- Indiana deputy dies after being attacked by inmate during failed escape
- A golden age for nonalcoholic beers, wines and spirits
Recommendation
Pressure on a veteran and senator shows what’s next for those who oppose Trump
Warming Trends: A Global Warming Beer Really Needs a Frosty Mug, Ghost Trees in New York and a Cooking Site Gives Up Beef
Air Pollution From Raising Livestock Accounts for Most of the 16,000 US Deaths Each Year Tied to Food Production, Study Finds
Southwest promoted five executives just weeks after a disastrous meltdown
In ‘Nickel Boys,’ striving for a new way to see
Pennsylvania Grand Jury Faults State Officials for Lax Fracking Oversight
Warming Trends: A Flag for Antarctica, Lonely Hearts ‘Hot for Climate Change Activists,’ and How to Check Your Environmental Handprint
Which economic indicator defined 2022?