Current:Home > MarketsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -Stellar Wealth Sphere
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-12 09:43:11
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! (759)
Related
- Trump invites nearly all federal workers to quit now, get paid through September
- Long Concerned About Air Pollution, Baltimore Experienced Elevated Levels on 43 Days in 2020
- White House targets junk fees in apartment rentals, promises anti-price gouging help
- Inside Clean Energy: What Happens When Solar Power Gets Much, Much Cheaper?
- Paula Abdul settles lawsuit with former 'So You Think You Can Dance' co
- Masatoshi Ito, who brought 7-Eleven convenience stores to Japan, has died
- Rebel Wilson and Fiancée Ramona Agruma Will Need a Pitch Perfect Compromise on Wedding Plans
- US Forest Service burn started wildfire that nearly reached Los Alamos, New Mexico, agency says
- Retirement planning: 3 crucial moves everyone should make before 2025
- Indigenous Women in Peru Seek to Turn the Tables on Big Oil, Asserting ‘Rights of Nature’ to Fight Epic Spills
Ranking
- Retirement planning: 3 crucial moves everyone should make before 2025
- Inside Clean Energy: Where Can We Put All Those Wind Turbines?
- The number of Black video game developers is small, but strong
- The Supreme Court’s EPA Ruling: A Loss of Authority for Federal Agencies or a Lesson for Conservatives in ‘Be Careful What You Wish For’?
- Selena Gomez engaged to Benny Blanco after 1 year together: 'Forever begins now'
- Biden reassures bank customers and says the failed firms' leaders are fired
- Jon Hamm Marries Mad Men Costar Anna Osceola in California Wedding
- Inside Clean Energy: Where Can We Put All Those Wind Turbines?
Recommendation
Meta releases AI model to enhance Metaverse experience
California court says Uber, Lyft can treat state drivers as independent contractors
‘Reduced Risk’ Pesticides Are Widespread in California Streams
16 Michigan residents face felony charges for fake electors scheme after 2020 election
Meta donates $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund
Mega Millions jackpot jumps to $720 million after no winners in Tuesday's drawing
$58M in federal grants aim to help schools, day care centers remove lead from drinking water
Mega Millions jackpot jumps to $720 million after no winners in Tuesday's drawing