Current:Home > MarketsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -ProgressCapital
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-16 11:44:55
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! (7)
Related
- Newly elected West Virginia lawmaker arrested and accused of making terroristic threats
- Report: Contaminants being removed from vacant Chicago lot where migrant housing is planned
- Jim Harbaugh sign-stealing suspension: Why Michigan coach is back for Big Ten championship
- Why Ian Somerhalder, Josh Hartnett and More Stars Have Left Hollywood Behind
- Trump suggestion that Egypt, Jordan absorb Palestinians from Gaza draws rejections, confusion
- Fiery crash on New Hampshire interstate sets off ammunition
- A suspected bomb blast kills at least 3 Christian worshippers in southern Philippines
- How a quadruple amputee overcame countless rejections to make his pilot dreams take off
- Woman dies after Singapore family of 3 gets into accident in Taiwan
- Man kills 4 relatives in Queens knife rampage, injures 2 officers before he’s fatally shot by police
Ranking
- What do we know about the mysterious drones reported flying over New Jersey?
- Ex-president barred from leaving Ukraine amid alleged plan to meet with Hungary’s Viktor Orban
- Alabama, Nick Saban again run the SEC but will it mean spot in College Football Playoff?
- Jim Harbaugh sign-stealing suspension: Why Michigan coach is back for Big Ten championship
- IRS recovers $4.7 billion in back taxes and braces for cuts with Trump and GOP in power
- 'The Challenge' is understanding why this 'Squid Game' game show was green-lit
- Iran-linked cyberattacks threaten equipment used in U.S. water systems and factories
- 'We want her to feel empowered': 6-year-old from New Jersey wows world with genius level IQ
Recommendation
What do we know about the mysterious drones reported flying over New Jersey?
College Football Playoff committee has tough task, but picking Alabama is an easy call.
Israel says more hostages released by Hamas as temporary cease-fire holds for 7th day
Olivia Rodrigo performs new 'Hunger Games' song at Jingle Ball 2023, more highlights
Taylor Swift makes surprise visit to Kansas City children’s hospital
Shane MacGowan, longtime frontman of The Pogues, dies at 65, family says
Sister Wives' Janelle Brown Shares the One Thing She’d Change About Her Marriage to Kody
Vermont day care provider convicted of causing infant’s death with doses of antihistamine