Current:Home > InvestHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -WealthRoots Academy
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-15 19:08:08
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! (47)
Related
- Senate begins final push to expand Social Security benefits for millions of people
- Many Americans are wrong about key economic trends. Take this quiz to test your knowledge.
- Patrick Mahomes' Wife Brittany Mahomes Gives Health Update After Breaking Her Back
- New research could help predict the next solar flare
- Tree trimmer dead after getting caught in wood chipper at Florida town hall
- Off the Grid: Sally breaks down USA TODAY's daily crossword puzzle, The Wi-Fi Is Down
- You'll Be Stuck On New Parents Sofia Richie and Elliot Grainge's Love Story
- A police officer is held in deadly shooting in riot-hit New Caledonia after Macron pushes for calm
- Taylor Swift Eras Archive site launches on singer's 35th birthday. What is it?
- Wreckage of famed 'Hit 'em HARDER' submarine found in South China Sea: See video
Ranking
- Apple iOS 18.2: What to know about top features, including Genmoji, AI updates
- What is clear-air turbulence? What to know about the very violent phenomenon
- Despite surging demand for long-term care, providers struggle to find workers
- NCAA, leagues sign off on nearly $3 billion plan to set stage for dramatic change across college sports
- Newly elected West Virginia lawmaker arrested and accused of making terroristic threats
- Immigration officer convicted of shooting photos and video up a flight attendant’s skirt
- Louisville officer in Scottie Scheffler arrest faced previous discipline. What we know.
- Catholic church in downtown Madison catches fire following storms
Recommendation
'Kraven the Hunter' spoilers! Let's dig into that twisty ending, supervillain reveal
Pronouns and tribal affiliations are now forbidden in South Dakota public university employee emails
Southern California man federally charged for 'swatting' calls targeting schools, airport
Judge in hush money trial rejects Trump request to sanction prosecutors
Why members of two of EPA's influential science advisory committees were let go
Commentary: The price for me, but not for thee?
Charles Barkley says 'morale sucks' as 'Inside the NBA' remains in limbo for TNT
Pistons hiring Pelicans GM Trajan Langdon to be president of basketball operations