Current:Home > InvestHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -FundSphere
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-15 00:44:50
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! (1574)
Related
- 'No Good Deed': Who's the killer in the Netflix comedy? And will there be a Season 2?
- Oregon Supreme Court declines for now to review challenge to Trump's eligibility for ballot
- From Elvis to Lisa Marie Presley, Inside the Shocking Pileup of Tragedy in One Iconic Family
- House GOP moving forward with Hunter Biden contempt vote next week
- Meet first time Grammy nominee Charley Crockett
- Man dies, brother survives after both fall into freezing pond while ice fishing in New York
- Parents facing diaper duty could see relief from bipartisan tax legislation introduced in Kentucky
- Sign bearing Trump’s name removed from Bronx golf course as new management takes over
- What were Tom Selleck's juicy final 'Blue Bloods' words in Reagan family
- The avalanche risk is high in much of the western US. Here’s what you need to know to stay safe
Ranking
- Justice Department, Louisville reach deal after probe prompted by Breonna Taylor killing
- Indonesia’s president visits Vietnam’s EV maker Vinfast and says conditions ready for a car plant
- New test of water in Mississippi capital negative for E. coli bacteria, city water manager says
- 2 rescued after SUV gets stuck 10 feet in the air between trees in Massachusetts
- Who's hosting 'Saturday Night Live' tonight? Musical guest, how to watch Dec. 14 episode
- Detroit officer, 2 suspects shot after police responding to shooting entered a home, official says
- Gucci’s new creative director plunges into menswear with slightly shimmery, subversive classics
- House GOP moving forward with Hunter Biden contempt vote next week
Recommendation
Former Syrian official arrested in California who oversaw prison charged with torture
Massachusetts man to buy safe car for daughter, grandchild with $1 million lottery win
Speaker Johnson insists he’s sticking to budget deal but announces no plan to stop partial shutdown
Q&A: In New Hampshire, Nikki Haley Touts Her Role as UN Ambassador in Pulling the US Out of the Paris Climate Accord
Meta releases AI model to enhance Metaverse experience
The Australian Open and what to know: Earlier start. Netflix curse? Osaka’s back. Nadal’s not
Is Jay-Z's new song about Beyoncé? 'The bed ain't a bed without you'
Mass shooting at Buffalo supermarket now Justice Department’s first death penalty case under Garland