Current:Home > NewsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -ProsperityStream Academy
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-15 18:36:44
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! (8184)
Related
- Global Warming Set the Stage for Los Angeles Fires
- A Pennsylvania Community Wins a Reprieve on Toxic Fracking Wastewater
- Here's the Reason Why Goldie Hawn Never Married Longtime Love Kurt Russell
- Revisit Ariana Grande and Dalton Gomez's Love Story After Their Break Up
- DeepSeek: Did a little known Chinese startup cause a 'Sputnik moment' for AI?
- Extreme Heat Is Already Straining the Mexican Power Grid
- Bumble and Bumble 2 for the Price of 1 Deal: Get Frizz-Free, Soft, Vibrant Hair for Just $31
- Below Deck Sailing Yacht's Mads Slams Gary Following Their Casual Boatmance
- New Mexico governor seeks funding to recycle fracking water, expand preschool, treat mental health
- Global Warming Fueled Both the Ongoing Floods and the Drought That Preceded Them in Italy’s Emilia-Romagna Region
Ranking
- FACT FOCUS: Inspector general’s Jan. 6 report misrepresented as proof of FBI setup
- Jamie Lee Curtis Has the Ultimate Response to Lindsay Lohan Giving Birth to Her First Baby
- When an Actor Meets an Angel: The Love Story of Dylan Sprouse and Barbara Palvin
- North Texas Suburb Approves New Fracking Zone Near Homes and Schools
- Jamie Foxx gets stitches after a glass is thrown at him during dinner in Beverly Hills
- Nearly 1 in 5 Americans Live in Communities With Harmful Air Quality, Study Shows
- Methane Mitigation in Texas Could Create Thousands of Jobs in the Oil and Gas Sector
- EPA Proposes to Expand its Regulations on Dumps of Toxic Waste From Burning Coal
Recommendation
Nearly half of US teens are online ‘constantly,’ Pew report finds
Ariana Grande and Dalton Gomez Break Up After 2 Years of Marriage
Q&A: What to Do About Pollution From a Vast New Shell Plastics Plant in Pennsylvania
Below Deck Sailing Yacht's Mads Slams Gary Following Their Casual Boatmance
Tarte Shape Tape Concealer Sells Once Every 4 Seconds: Get 50% Off Before It's Gone
Funding Poised to Dry Up for Water Projects in Ohio and Other States if Proposed Budget Cuts Become Law
Shell Sued Over Air Emissions at Pennsylvania’s New Petrochemical Plant
Record Investment Merely Scratches the Surface of Fixing Black America’s Water Crisis