Current:Home > InvestHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -Infinite Profit Zone
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-26 17:29:14
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! (53521)
Related
- US wholesale inflation accelerated in November in sign that some price pressures remain elevated
- Thousands of veterans face foreclosure and it's not their fault. The VA could help
- Yellen says her talks with Chinese finance chief laid groundwork for Biden’s meeting with Xi
- Joe Jonas, Sophie Turner and the truth about long engagements and relationship success
- IRS recovers $4.7 billion in back taxes and braces for cuts with Trump and GOP in power
- Actors back. Pandas gone. WeBankrupt.
- What's Making Us Happy: A guide to your weekend viewing and reading
- State Department rushes to respond to internal outcry over Israel-Hamas war
- Israel lets Palestinians go back to northern Gaza for first time in over a year as cease
- Why Hunger Games Prequel Star Hunter Schafer Wants to Have a Drink With Jennifer Lawrence
Ranking
- Paula Abdul settles lawsuit with former 'So You Think You Can Dance' co
- Is it OK to say 'Happy Veterans Day'? Veterans share best way to honor them
- JAY-Z and Gayle King: Brooklyn's Own prime-time special to feature never-before-seen interview highlights
- Some VA home loans offer zero down payment. Why don't more veterans know about them?
- Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie return for an 'Encore,' reminisce about 'The Simple Life'
- Aldi can be a saver's paradise: Here's how to make the most of deals in every aisle
- Olympic skater's doping fiasco will drag into 2024, near 2-year mark, as delays continue
- Pakistani police cracking down on migrants are arresting Afghan women and children, activists claim
Recommendation
Bill Belichick's salary at North Carolina: School releases football coach's contract details
5.0 magnitude quake strikes Dominican Republic near border with Haiti
Sam Bankman-Fried is guilty, and the industry he helped build wants to move on
Billions of people have stretch marks. Are they dangerous or just a nuisance?
Dick Vitale announces he is cancer free: 'Santa Claus came early'
Suspected Islamic extremists holding about 30 ethnic Dogon men hostage after bus raid, leader says
Why Taylor Swift Is Canceling Argentina Eras Tour Concert
Matt Ulrich, former Super Bowl champ, dead at age 41