Current:Home > reviewsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -GrowthSphere Strategies
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-14 18:58:28
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! (478)
Related
- How to watch the 'Blue Bloods' Season 14 finale: Final episode premiere date, cast
- North Carolina’s public universities cut 59 positions as part of a massive DEI overhaul this summer
- Judge disqualifies Cornel West from running for president in Georgia
- 2024 MTV VMAs: Halsey Teases Marriage to Avan Jogia Amid Engagement Rumors
- See you latte: Starbucks plans to cut 30% of its menu
- A Colorado man is charged with arson in a wildfire that destroyed 26 homes
- Northern lights may be visible in 17 states: Where to see forecasted auroras in the US
- Harris and Trump are jockeying for battleground states after their debate faceoff
- Paige Bueckers vs. Hannah Hidalgo highlights women's basketball games to watch
- Coach Outlet Bags & Wallets Under $100—Starting at $26, Up to 75% Off! Shop Top Deals on Bestsellers Now
Ranking
- Meta releases AI model to enhance Metaverse experience
- University of Mississippi official and her husband are indicted on animal cruelty charges
- Linkin Park setlist: All songs in the From Zero World Tour kickoff with Emily Armstrong
- James McAvoy's positively toxic 'Speak No Evil' villain was 'a tricky gift'
- North Carolina trustees approve Bill Belichick’s deal ahead of introductory news conference
- Today Only! Old Navy Leggings & Biker Shorts Are Just $6 & Come in Tons of Colors, Stock Up Now
- Judge orders Tyrese into custody over $73K in child support: 'Getting arrested wasn't fun'
- Auburn QB Payton Thorne says bettors asked him for money on Venmo after loss
Recommendation
Why Sean "Diddy" Combs Is Being Given a Laptop in Jail Amid Witness Intimidation Fears
Man accused of starting Line Wildfire in California arrested as crews battle blaze
Tyreek Hill calls for firing of police officer involved in Sunday's incident
Judge orders Tyrese into custody over $73K in child support: 'Getting arrested wasn't fun'
Tree trimmer dead after getting caught in wood chipper at Florida town hall
UAW’s rift with Stellantis raises fear that some US auto jobs could vanish
Young women are more liberal than they’ve been in decades, a Gallup analysis finds
The New Lululemon We Made Too Much Drops Start at $29 -- But They Won't Last Long