Current:Home > ScamsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -Momentum Wealth Path
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-18 13:16:10
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! (75)
Related
- Juan Soto to be introduced by Mets at Citi Field after striking record $765 million, 15
- Bosnia war criminal living in Arizona gets over 5 years in prison for visa fraud
- North Carolina trial judges block election board changes made by Republican legislature
- Megan Fox reveals ectopic pregnancy loss before miscarriage with Machine Gun Kelly
- Biden administration makes final diplomatic push for stability across a turbulent Mideast
- Google this week will begin deleting inactive accounts. Here's how to save yours.
- Elon Musk says advertiser boycott at X could kill the company
- Pressure builds to eliminate fossil fuel use as oil executive, under fire, takes over climate talks
- Apple iOS 18.2: What to know about top features, including Genmoji, AI updates
- Indiana man suspected in teen girl’s disappearance charged with murder after remains found
Ranking
- 'No Good Deed': Who's the killer in the Netflix comedy? And will there be a Season 2?
- Ex-health secretary Matt Hancock defends his record at UK’s COVID inquiry
- Israel strikes Gaza after truce expires, in clear sign that war has resumed in full force
- MLB great Andre Dawson wants to switch his hat from Expos to Cubs on Hall of Fame plaque
- Costco membership growth 'robust,' even amid fee increase: What to know about earnings release
- Every Time Kaley Cuoco Has Shown Off Adorable Daughter Matilda
- J.J. Watt – yes, that J.J. Watt – broke the news of Zach Ertz's split from the Cardinals
- Members of global chemical weapons watchdog vote to keep Syria from getting poison gas materials
Recommendation
Will the 'Yellowstone' finale be the last episode? What we know about Season 6, spinoffs
Paraguay official resigns after signing agreement with fictional country
Federal judge blocks Montana's TikTok ban before it takes effect
Which NFL teams could jump into playoff picture? Ranking seven outsiders from worst to best
Charges tied to China weigh on GM in Q4, but profit and revenue top expectations
Montana’s first-in-the-nation ban on TikTok blocked by judge who says it’s unconstitutional
Wolverines now considered threatened species under Endangered Species Act
Influential Detroit pastor the Rev. Charles Gilchrist Adams dies at age 86