Current:Home > reviewsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -Secure Growth Academy
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-22 11:55:17
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! (1)
Related
- The Best Stocking Stuffers Under $25
- Biden to ask Congress in Oval Office address for funding including aid for Israel and Ukraine
- New Mexico county official could face a recall over Spanish conquistador statue controversy
- Republicans are facing death threats as the election for speaker gets mired in personal feuds
- 2 killed, 3 injured in shooting at makeshift club in Houston
- Applications for US jobless benefits fall to lowest level in more than 8 months
- Netflix is increasing prices. Here's how much the price hike is going to cost you.
- How The Golden Bachelor’s Joan Vassos Feels About “Reliving” Her Sudden Exit
- Opinion: Gianni Infantino, FIFA sell souls and 2034 World Cup for Saudi Arabia's billions
- As Israel-Hamas war rages, Israelis can now travel to US for 90 days without getting a visa
Ranking
- Head of the Federal Aviation Administration to resign, allowing Trump to pick his successor
- Holiday Gifts Under $50 That It's Definitely Not Too Soon To Buy
- Marine killed in Camp Lejeune barracks and fellow Marine held as suspect, the base says
- Japan and Australia agree to further step up defense cooperation under 2-month-old security pact
- Senate begins final push to expand Social Security benefits for millions of people
- American journalist detained in Russia for failing to register as foreign agent
- 'We couldn't save Rani': Endangered elephant dies at St. Louis Zoo after unknown heart changes
- ‘Drop in the ocean': UN-backed aid could soon enter Gaza from Egypt, but only at a trickle for now
Recommendation
US appeals court rejects Nasdaq’s diversity rules for company boards
Popular use of obesity drugs like Ozempic could change consumer habits
What’s that bar band playing “Jumpin’ Jack Flash”? Oh, it’s the Rolling Stones!
In big year for labor, California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivers both wins and surprises
Newly elected West Virginia lawmaker arrested and accused of making terroristic threats
AP PHOTOS: Scenes of violence and despair on the war’s 13th day
Federal judge again rules that California’s ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional
The government secures a $9 million settlement with Ameris Bank over alleged redlining in Florida