Current:Home > reviewsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -AssetScope
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-11 19:55:51
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! (1)
Related
- Biden administration makes final diplomatic push for stability across a turbulent Mideast
- Summer House's Lindsay Hubbard and Carl Radke Only Had Sex This Often Before Breakup
- Megan Thee Stallion to go on Hot Girl Summer Tour with rapper GloRilla: How to get tickets
- Fifth suspect charged in Philadelphia bus stop shooting that wounded 8
- NFL Week 15 picks straight up and against spread: Bills, Lions put No. 1 seed hopes on line
- Savor this NCAA men's tournament because future Cinderellas are in danger
- Fifth suspect charged in Philadelphia bus stop shooting that wounded 8
- Michael Strahan's Daughter Isabella Shares Update On Chemotherapy Timeline Amid Cancer Battle
- What to watch: O Jolie night
- Stock market today: Asian shares are mixed after another Wall Street record day
Ranking
- Most popular books of the week: See what topped USA TODAY's bestselling books list
- Are there any perfect brackets left in March Madness? Yes ... but not many after Kentucky loss
- Stellantis lays off about 400 salaried workers to handle uncertainty in electric vehicle transition
- Lorrie Moore wins National Book Critics Circle award for fiction, Judy Blume also honored
- Which apps offer encrypted messaging? How to switch and what to know after feds’ warning
- I Shop Fashion for a Living, and These Are My Top Picks From Saks Fifth Avenue's Friends & Family Sale
- Can’t Fall Asleep? This Cooling Body Pillow Is Only $28 During Amazon’s Big Spring Sale
- Caitlin Clark's first March Madness opponent set: Holy Cross up next after First Four blowout
Recommendation
Selena Gomez's "Weird Uncles" Steve Martin and Martin Short React to Her Engagement
How Sinéad O’Connor’s Daughter Roisin Waters Honored Late Mom During Tribute Concert
How Chinese science fiction went from underground magazines to Netflix extravaganza
What the DOJ lawsuit against Apple could mean for consumers
Pregnant Kylie Kelce Shares Hilarious Question Her Daughter Asked Jason Kelce Amid Rising Fame
How Chinese science fiction went from underground magazines to Netflix extravaganza
Gisele Bündchen Details Battle With Severe Panic Attacks and Depression in Her 20s
Appeals court orders judge to investigate juror bias claims in Boston bomber's trial