Current:Home > FinanceHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -InfinityFinance
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-19 21:59:45
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! (9218)
Related
- Global Warming Set the Stage for Los Angeles Fires
- Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow owns a $3 million Batmobile Tumbler
- Federal court filings allege official committed perjury in lawsuit tied to Louisiana grain terminal
- Who's hosting 'Saturday Night Live' tonight? Musical guest, how to watch Dec. 14 episode
- Meta donates $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund
- Will the 'Yellowstone' finale be the last episode? What we know about Season 6, spinoffs
- Justice Department, Louisville reach deal after probe prompted by Breonna Taylor killing
- Scoot flight from Singapore to Wuhan turns back after 'technical issue' detected
- What do we know about the mysterious drones reported flying over New Jersey?
- Opinion: Gianni Infantino, FIFA sell souls and 2034 World Cup for Saudi Arabia's billions
Ranking
- Justice Department, Louisville reach deal after probe prompted by Breonna Taylor killing
- The White House is cracking down on overdraft fees
- What to watch: O Jolie night
- House passes bill to add 66 new federal judgeships, but prospects murky after Biden veto threat
- Former Syrian official arrested in California who oversaw prison charged with torture
- Newly elected West Virginia lawmaker arrested and accused of making terroristic threats
- From family road trips to travel woes: Americans are navigating skyrocketing holiday costs
- Working Well: When holidays present rude customers, taking breaks and the high road preserve peace
Recommendation
Bodycam footage shows high
US appeals court rejects Nasdaq’s diversity rules for company boards
Chuck Scarborough signs off: Hoda Kotb, Al Roker tribute legendary New York anchor
Newly elected West Virginia lawmaker arrested and accused of making terroristic threats
South Korea's acting president moves to reassure allies, calm markets after Yoon impeachment
Senate begins final push to expand Social Security benefits for millions of people
What to watch: O Jolie night
IRS recovers $4.7 billion in back taxes and braces for cuts with Trump and GOP in power