Current:Home > StocksHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -TruePath Finance
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-12 09:24:47
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! (9)
Related
- How to watch the 'Blue Bloods' Season 14 finale: Final episode premiere date, cast
- These are some of the people who'll be impacted if the U.S. defaults on its debts
- Ice-T Defends Wife Coco Austin After She Posts NSFW Pool Photo
- A Pipeline Giant Pleads ‘No Contest’ to Environmental Crimes in Pennsylvania After Homeowners Complained of Tainted Water
- Sarah J. Maas books explained: How to read 'ACOTAR,' 'Throne of Glass' in order.
- The case for financial literacy education
- The IRS is building its own online tax filing system. Tax-prep companies aren't happy
- The U.S. is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story
- Mets have visions of grandeur, and a dynasty, with Juan Soto as major catalyst
- Frustration Simmers Around the Edges of COP27, and May Boil Over Far From the Summit
Ranking
- Mets have visions of grandeur, and a dynasty, with Juan Soto as major catalyst
- Smallville's Allison Mack Released From Prison Early in NXIVM Sex Trafficking Case
- At COP27, an 11th-Hour Deal Comes Together as the US Reverses Course on ‘Loss and Damage’
- At COP27, an 11th-Hour Deal Comes Together as the US Reverses Course on ‘Loss and Damage’
- Bodycam footage shows high
- Daniel Radcliffe Shares Rare Insight Into His Magical New Chapter as a Dad
- Republicans Eye the SEC’s Climate-Related Disclosure Regulations, Should They Take Control of Congress
- Warming Trends: Bill Nye’s New Focus on Climate Change, Bottled Water as a Social Lens and the Coming End of Blacktop
Recommendation
The Best Stocking Stuffers Under $25
The U.S. is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story
A ride with Boot Girls, 2 women challenging Atlanta's parking enforcement industry
The dangers of money market funds
John Galliano out at Maison Margiela, capping year of fashion designer musical chairs
A New GOP Climate Plan Is Long on Fossil Fuels, Short on Specifics
Insurance firms need more climate change information. Scientists say they can help
China Ramps Up Coal Power to Boost Post-Lockdown Growth