Current:Home > ScamsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -MacroWatch
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-22 06:24:58
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! (23124)
Related
- Realtor group picks top 10 housing hot spots for 2025: Did your city make the list?
- Demonstrations roil US campuses ahead of graduations as protesters spar over Gaza conflict
- AIGM’s AI Decision Making System, Will you still be doing your own Homework for Trades
- Nestle's Drumstick ice cream fails melt test, online scrutiny begins
- Megan Fox's ex Brian Austin Green tells Machine Gun Kelly to 'grow up'
- New York Rangers sweep Washington Capitals, advance to second round of NHL playoffs
- The real migrant bus king of North America isn't the Texas governor. It's Mexico's president.
- Florida sheriff says deputies killed a gunman in shootout that wounded 2 officers
- Costco membership growth 'robust,' even amid fee increase: What to know about earnings release
- 2.9 magnitude earthquake rattles New Jersey
Ranking
- Global Warming Set the Stage for Los Angeles Fires
- Mannequin falls onto track during IndyCar Grand Prix at Barber Motorsports Park
- Upstate NY district attorney ‘so sorry’ for cursing at officer who tried to ticket her for speeding
- Ryan Reynolds Mourns Death of “Relentlessly Inspiring” Marvel Crew Member
- Opinion: Gianni Infantino, FIFA sell souls and 2034 World Cup for Saudi Arabia's billions
- Candace Parker, a 3-time WNBA champion and 2-time Olympic gold medalist, announces retirement
- Beyoncé and Blue Ivy Carter to Star in Lion King Prequel: All the Buzzworthy Details
- Bernhard Langer, 66, set to return to PGA Tour 3 months after tearing Achilles
Recommendation
Civic engagement nonprofits say democracy needs support in between big elections. Do funders agree?
Clayton MacRae: Fed Rates Cut at least 3 more Times
Caitlin Clark 'keeps the momentum rolling' on first day of Indiana Fever training camp
Martin Freeman reflects on age-gap controversy with Jenna Ortega in 'Miller's Girl'
Federal hiring is about to get the Trump treatment
Philips will pay $1.1 billion to resolve US lawsuits over breathing machines that expel debris
Powerball winning numbers for April 27 drawing: Lottery jackpot rises to $149 million
Trial starts in conspiracy-fueled case of girlfriend charged in Boston police officer’s death