Current:Home > MyHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -Wealth Nexus Pro
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-27 20:26:30
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! (1714)
Related
- Pressure on a veteran and senator shows what’s next for those who oppose Trump
- Elon Musk and Grimes Have a Third Child, New Biography Says
- Artificial intelligence technology behind ChatGPT was built in Iowa -- with a lot of water
- Sailors reach land safely after sharks nearly sink their boat off Australia: There were many — maybe 20, maybe 30, maybe more
- Taylor Swift Eras Archive site launches on singer's 35th birthday. What is it?
- What's at stake for Texas when it travels to Alabama in Week 2 of college football
- Russia is turning to old ally North Korea to resupply its arsenal for the war in Ukraine
- Hurricane Lee is charting a new course in weather and could signal more monster storms
- Kylie Jenner Shows Off Sweet Notes From Nieces Dream Kardashian & Chicago West
- Gunmen attack vehicles at border crossing into north Mexico, wounding 9, including some Americans
Ranking
- Opinion: Gianni Infantino, FIFA sell souls and 2034 World Cup for Saudi Arabia's billions
- The US Supreme Court took away abortion rights. Mexico's high court just did the opposite.
- The Secret to Ozzy Osbourne and Sharon Osbourne's 40-Year Marriage Revealed
- Neymar breaks Pele’s Brazil goal-scoring record in 5-1 win in South American World Cup qualifying
- This was the average Social Security benefit in 2004, and here's what it is now
- No, a pound of muscle does not weigh more than a pound of fat. But here's why it appears to.
- A southern Swiss region votes on a plan to fast-track big solar parks on Alpine mountainsides
- As Jacksonville shooting victims are eulogized, advocates call attention to anti-Black hate crimes
Recommendation
Man can't find second winning lottery ticket, sues over $394 million jackpot, lawsuit says
Sailors reach land safely after sharks nearly sink their boat off Australia: There were many — maybe 20, maybe 30, maybe more
‘The world knows us.’ South Sudanese cheer their basketball team’s rise and Olympic qualification
Affirmative action wars hit the workplace: Conservatives target 'woke' DEI programs
Former Danish minister for Greenland discusses Trump's push to acquire island
Biden, Modi and EU to announce rail and shipping project linking India to Middle East and Europe
Philips Respironics agrees to $479 million CPAP settlement
College football Week 2 highlights: Alabama-Texas score, best action from Saturday