Current:Home > StocksHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -ProWealth Academy
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-16 03:37:38
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! (459)
Related
- Behind on your annual reading goal? Books under 200 pages to read before 2024 ends
- Steve Irwin's Son Robert Irwin and Heath Ledger's Niece Rorie Buckey Made Red Carpet Debut
- And Just Like That, Sarah Jessica Parker Shares Her Candid Thoughts on Aging
- 2 states launch an investigation of the NFL over gender discrimination and harassment
- Woman dies after Singapore family of 3 gets into accident in Taiwan
- Who's the boss in today's labor market?
- Inside Chrissy Teigen and John Legend's Love Story: In-N-Out Burgers and Super Sexy Photos
- 2 states launch an investigation of the NFL over gender discrimination and harassment
- Israel lets Palestinians go back to northern Gaza for first time in over a year as cease
- Manure-Eating Worms Could Be the Dairy Industry’s Climate Solution
Ranking
- Behind on your annual reading goal? Books under 200 pages to read before 2024 ends
- Steve Irwin's Son Robert Irwin and Heath Ledger's Niece Rorie Buckey Made Red Carpet Debut
- Amid a child labor crisis, U.S. state governments are loosening regulations
- Taylor Swift Jokes About Apparent Stage Malfunction During The Eras Tour Concert
- Jamie Foxx reps say actor was hit in face by a glass at birthday dinner, needed stitches
- Why zoos can't buy or sell animals
- Pregnant Kourtney Kardashian Is Officially Hitting the Road as a Barker
- Fernanda Ramirez Is “Obsessed With” This Long-Lasting, Non-Sticky Lip Gloss
Recommendation
How to watch new prequel series 'Dexter: Original Sin': Premiere date, cast, streaming
More Mountain Glacier Collapses Feared as Heat Waves Engulf the Northern Hemisphere
10 Trendy Amazon Jewelry Finds You'll Want to Wear All the Time
California Passed a Landmark Law About Plastic Pollution. Why Are Some Environmentalists Still Concerned?
Meta donates $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund
Environmentalists in Chile Are Hoping to Replace the Country’s Pinochet-Era Legal Framework With an ‘Ecological Constitution’
Manure-Eating Worms Could Be the Dairy Industry’s Climate Solution
Gen Z's dream job in the influencer industry