Current:Home > reviewsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -Trailblazer Capital Learning
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-12 15:00:00
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! (1164)
Related
- Friday the 13th luck? 13 past Mega Millions jackpot wins in December. See top 10 lottery prizes
- Taylor Lautner Shares Insight Into 2009 Breakup With Taylor Swift
- Woman and man riding snowmachine found dead after storm hampered search in Alaska
- A judge may rule on Wyoming’s abortion laws, including the first explicit US ban on abortion pills
- Trump suggestion that Egypt, Jordan absorb Palestinians from Gaza draws rejections, confusion
- Carbon monoxide leak suspected of killing Washington state college student
- Students say their New York school's cellphone ban helped improve their mental health
- Dow hits record high as investors cheer Fed outlook on interest rates
- Justice Department, Louisville reach deal after probe prompted by Breonna Taylor killing
- AP PHOTOS: Crowds bundle up to take snowy photos of Beijing’s imperial-era architecture
Ranking
- Global Warming Set the Stage for Los Angeles Fires
- Students say their New York school's cellphone ban helped improve their mental health
- Ex-Tokyo Olympics official pleads not guilty to taking bribes in exchange for Games contracts
- NBA All-Star George McGinnis dies at 73 after complications from a cardiac arrest
- Trump wants to turn the clock on daylight saving time
- 13-year-old accused of plotting mass shooting at Temple Israel synagogue in Ohio
- Putin questions Olympic rules for neutral Russian athletes at Paris Games
- Victoria Beckham Reflects on Challenging Experience With Tabloid Culture
Recommendation
Whoopi Goldberg is delightfully vile as Miss Hannigan in ‘Annie’ stage return
Turkish lawmaker who collapsed in parliament after delivering speech, dies
Discovery inside unearthed bottle would’ve shocked the scientist who buried it in 1879
Luke Combs responds to copyright lawsuit ordering woman who sold 18 tumblers pay him $250K
'Most Whopper
Virginia 4th graders fall ill after eating gummy bears contaminated with fentanyl
Putin questions Olympic rules for neutral Russian athletes at Paris Games
With inflation down, people are talking rate cuts. The European Central Bank may say not so fast