Current:Home > MarketsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -TradeBridge
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-23 23:14:22
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! (6)
Related
- The company planning a successor to Concorde makes its first supersonic test
- How to help those affected by Hurricane Helene
- Sex Lives of College Girls' Pauline Chalamet Gives Birth, Welcomes First Baby
- Braves host Mets in doubleheader to determine last two NL playoff teams
- Don't let hackers fool you with a 'scam
- Native Americans in Montana ask court for more in-person voting sites
- Judge in Alaska sets aside critical habitat designation for threatened bearded, ringed seals
- Cardi B Details Getting Another Round of Her Butt Injections Removed
- 'Most Whopper
- Shawn Mendes Shares Update on Camila Cabello Relationship After Brutal Public Split
Ranking
- Newly elected West Virginia lawmaker arrested and accused of making terroristic threats
- Biltmore Estate: What we know in the aftermath of Helene devastation in Asheville
- Beyoncé strips down with Levi's for new collab: See the cheeky ad
- 4 sources of retirement income besides Social Security to rely upon in 2025
- New Mexico governor seeks funding to recycle fracking water, expand preschool, treat mental health
- Pete Rose, baseball’s banned hits leader, has died at age 83
- Major League Baseball scraps criticized All-Star Game uniforms and goes back to team jerseys
- Pregnant Brittany Mahomes Shares Why She’s “Always Proud” of Patrick Mahomes
Recommendation
Moving abroad can be expensive: These 5 countries will 'pay' you to move there
Did 'SNL' mock Chappell Roan for harassment concerns? Controversial sketch sparks debate
Repair and Prevent Hair Damage With Our Picks From Oribe, Olaplex, & More
Murders, mayhem and officer’s gunfire lead to charges at Brooklyn jail where ‘Diddy’ is held
A White House order claims to end 'censorship.' What does that mean?
Biltmore Estate: What we know in the aftermath of Helene devastation in Asheville
Appeal delays $600 million class action settlement payments in fiery Ohio derailment
Ariana Grande Claps Back at the Discourse Around Her Voice, Cites Difference for Male Actors