Current:Home > reviewsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -MarketLink
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
Robert Brown View
Date:2025-04-07 08:50:15
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! (1884)
Related
- The city of Chicago is ordered to pay nearly $80M for a police chase that killed a 10
- The tax deadline is Tuesday. So far, refunds are 10% smaller than last year
- US Forest Fires Threaten Carbon Offsets as Company-Linked Trees Burn
- US Forest Fires Threaten Carbon Offsets as Company-Linked Trees Burn
- 'We're reborn!' Gazans express joy at returning home to north
- Kelly Osbourne Slams F--king T--t Prince Harry
- The IPCC Understated the Need to Cut Emissions From Methane and Other Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, Climate Experts Say
- Kaley Cuoco's Ex-Husband Karl Cook Engaged Nearly 2 Years After Their Breakup
- Arkansas State Police probe death of woman found after officer
- Marc Anthony and Wife Nadia Ferreira Welcome First Baby Together Just in Time for Father's Day
Ranking
- Nearly half of US teens are online ‘constantly,’ Pew report finds
- Kim Zolciak's Daughters Share Loving Tributes to Her Ex Kroy Biermann Amid Nasty Divorce Battle
- Inside Clean Energy: Unpacking California’s Controversial New Rooftop Solar Proposal
- Maryland Thought Deregulating Utilities Would Lower Rates. It’s Cost the State’s Residents Hundreds of Millions of Dollars.
- New Mexico governor seeks funding to recycle fracking water, expand preschool, treat mental health
- US Forest Fires Threaten Carbon Offsets as Company-Linked Trees Burn
- How Dying Forests and a Swedish Teenager Helped Revive Germany’s Clean Energy Revolution
- Ditch Drying Matte Formulas and Get $108 Worth of Estée Lauder 12-Hour Lipsticks for $46
Recommendation
Off the Grid: Sally breaks down USA TODAY's daily crossword puzzle, Triathlon
These Are the Black Beauty Founders Transforming the Industry
Ruby Princess cruise ship has left San Francisco after being damaged in dock crash
Looking for Amazon alternatives for ethical shopping? Here are some ideas
Arkansas State Police probe death of woman found after officer
Five Things To Know About Fracking in Pennsylvania. Are Voters Listening?
H&R Block and other tax-prep firms shared consumer data with Meta, lawmakers say
Maui Has Begun the Process of Managed Retreat. It Wants Big Oil to Pay the Cost of Sea Level Rise.