Current:Home > MarketsHere'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:2025-04-17 21:25:03
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! (3)
Related
- 2 killed, 3 injured in shooting at makeshift club in Houston
- MacKenzie Scott donates $640 million -- more than double her initial plan -- to nonprofit applicants
- How Sister Wives' Christine Brown Is Honoring Garrison Brown 2 Weeks After His Death
- Toddler hit, killed by Uber driver in Texas after being dropped off at apartment: Police
- How to watch the 'Blue Bloods' Season 14 finale: Final episode premiere date, cast
- TV is meant to be watched together. Your guide to Apple SharePlay, Amazon Prime Watch Party
- Take 50% Off It Cosmetics, 50% Off Old Navy, 42% Off Dyson Cordless Vacuums & More Daily Deals
- The Fed is meeting this week. Here's what experts are saying about the odds of a rate cut.
- Paige Bueckers vs. Hannah Hidalgo highlights women's basketball games to watch
- Over-the-counter birth control pill now available to Wisconsin Medicaid patients
Ranking
- Could your smelly farts help science?
- MLB 2024: Splashy Ohtani, Yamamoto signings boost Dodgers as teams try to dethrone Rangers
- Barack Obama releases NCAA March Madness 2024 brackets: See the former president's picks
- Fabric and crafts retailer Joann files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection: What to know
- A White House order claims to end 'censorship.' What does that mean?
- Jon Rahm to serve up Spanish flavor at Masters Club dinner for champions
- Over-the-counter birth control pill now available to Wisconsin Medicaid patients
- Lollapalooza lineup 2024: SZA, Blink-182, The Killers among headliners
Recommendation
At site of suspected mass killings, Syrians recall horrors, hope for answers
Oprah Winfrey Influenced Me To Buy These 31 Products
Willy Wonka-Inspired Event Organizer Says His “Life Is Ruined” After Failed Experience
Off the Grid: Sally breaks down USA TODAY's daily crossword puzzle, Dust-up
The FBI should have done more to collect intelligence before the Capitol riot, watchdog finds
Americans love pensions. Where did they go? Will they ever return?
Rapper Phat Geez killed in North Philadelphia shooting, no arrests made yet, police say
Bill and Lisa Ford to raise $10M for Detroit youth nonprofit endowments