Current:Home > NewsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -Zenith Investment School
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-15 13:35:38
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! (93)
Related
- Former Syrian official arrested in California who oversaw prison charged with torture
- 12 House Republicans Urge Congress to Cut ANWR Oil Drilling from Tax Bill
- Unlikely Firms Bring Clout and Cash to Clean Energy Lobbying Effort
- One way to prevent gun violence? Treat it as a public health issue
- Sonya Massey's father decries possible release of former deputy charged with her death
- College Graduation Gift Guide: 17 Must-Have Presents for Every Kind of Post-Grad Plan
- CBS News poll finds most say Roe's overturn has been bad for country, half say abortion has been more restricted than expected
- Senate weighs bill to strip failed bank executives of pay
- Senate begins final push to expand Social Security benefits for millions of people
- Judge blocks Arkansas's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth
Ranking
- Angelina Jolie nearly fainted making Maria Callas movie: 'My body wasn’t strong enough'
- They're trying to cure nodding syndrome. First they need to zero in on the cause
- Wind Industry, Riding Tax-Credit Rollercoaster, Reports Year of Growth
- What Dr. Fauci Can Learn from Climate Scientists About Responding to Personal Attacks Over Covid-19
- Former longtime South Carolina congressman John Spratt dies at 82
- Selling Sunset’s Nicole Young Details Online Hate She's Received Over Feud With Chrishell Stause
- 10-year-old boy uses musical gift to soothe homeless dogs at Texas shelter
- Alaska Orders Review of All North Slope Oil Wells After Spill Linked to Permafrost
Recommendation
Juan Soto to be introduced by Mets at Citi Field after striking record $765 million, 15
Meet The Ultimatum: Queer Love's 5 Couples Who Are Deciding to Marry or Move On
How Nick Cannon Addressed Jamie Foxx's Absence During Beat Shazam Premiere
Selling Sunset’s Nicole Young Details Online Hate She's Received Over Feud With Chrishell Stause
Hackers hit Rhode Island benefits system in major cyberattack. Personal data could be released soon
Another Rising Cost of Climate Change: PG&E’s Blackouts to Prevent Wildfires
House Democrats’ Climate Plan Embraces Much of Green New Deal, but Not a Ban on Fracking
Taxpayers no longer have to fear the IRS knocking on their doors. IRS is ending practice.