Current:Home > FinanceHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -VisionFunds
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-17 09:39:47
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! (567)
Related
- The White House is cracking down on overdraft fees
- Israel finds large tunnel near Gaza border close to major crossing
- Live updates | Israel launches more strikes in Gaza as UN delays vote on a cease-fire resolution
- Parenting advice YouTuber Ruby Franke of Utah set to take plea agreement in child abuse case
- New data highlights 'achievement gap' for students in the US
- A Rwandan doctor in France faces 30 years in prison for alleged role in his country’s 1994 genocide
- A Rwandan doctor in France faces 30 years in prison for alleged role in his country’s 1994 genocide
- Doctor who treated freed Hamas hostages describes physical, sexual and psychological abuse
- Working Well: When holidays present rude customers, taking breaks and the high road preserve peace
- Rep. Tony Gonzales on potential border deal passing the House: Have to sweeten the deal
Ranking
- A White House order claims to end 'censorship.' What does that mean?
- Jamie Foxx Reacts to Daughter Corinne's Engagement to Joe Hooten
- Anthony Edwards addresses text messages allegedly of him telling woman to 'get a abortion'
- Cyprus says a joint operation with Mossad has foiled a suspected Iranian plot to kill Israelis
- Costco membership growth 'robust,' even amid fee increase: What to know about earnings release
- Is black pepper good for you? Try it as a substitute.
- Jalen Hurts illness updates: Eagles QB expected to play vs. Seahawks on Monday
- Pregnant Suki Waterhouse Fuels Robert Pattinson Engagement Rumors With Ring on That Finger
Recommendation
IRS recovers $4.7 billion in back taxes and braces for cuts with Trump and GOP in power
Somber, joyful, magical: Some of the most compelling AP religion photos of 2023
Lionel Messi to have Newell's Old Boys reunion with Inter Miami friendly in 2024
Fifth Harmony's Ally Brooke Is Engaged to Will Bracey
Are Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp down? Meta says most issues resolved after outages
Ahmed Fareed to host 'Football Night in America' with Maria Taylor going on parental leave
Google's Android app store benefits from anticompetitive barriers, jury in Epic Games lawsuit says
Witnesses, evidence indicate Hamas committed acts of sexual violence during Oct. 7 attack