Current:Home > ContactHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -BeyondProfit Compass
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
Fastexy View
Date:2025-04-07 21:33:16
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! (233)
Related
- Former Danish minister for Greenland discusses Trump's push to acquire island
- New Arctic Council Reports Underline the Growing Concerns About the Health and Climate Impacts of Polar Air Pollution
- Tidal-wave type flooding leads to at least one death, swirling cars, dozens of rescues in Northeast
- A Lawsuit Challenges the Tennessee Valley Authority’s New Program of ‘Never-Ending’ Contracts
- Off the Grid: Sally breaks down USA TODAY's daily crossword puzzle, Triathlon
- Protests Target a ‘Carbon Bomb’ Linking Two Major Pipelines Outside Boston
- Fisher-Price reminds customers of sleeper recall after more reported infant deaths
- Q&A: Why Women Leading the Climate Movement are Underappreciated and Sometimes Invisible
- Pressure on a veteran and senator shows what’s next for those who oppose Trump
- Fossil Fuel Advocates’ New Tactic: Calling Opposition to Arctic Drilling ‘Racist’
Ranking
- IRS recovers $4.7 billion in back taxes and braces for cuts with Trump and GOP in power
- Read Ryan Reynolds' Subtle Shout-Out to His and Blake Lively's 4th Baby
- Vermont police officer, 19, killed in high-speed crash with suspect she was chasing
- Millions of workers are subject to noncompete agreements. They could soon be banned
- Could your smelly farts help science?
- The RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars Cast Reveals Makeup Hacks Worthy of a Crown
- BP Pledges to Cut Oil and Gas Production 40 Percent by 2030, but Some Questions Remain
- Young Voters, Motivated by Climate Change and Environmental Justice, Helped Propel Biden’s Campaign
Recommendation
DeepSeek: Did a little known Chinese startup cause a 'Sputnik moment' for AI?
How Buying A Home Became A Key Way To Build Wealth In America
Ukraine's Elina Svitolina missed a Harry Styles show to play Wimbledon. Now, Styles has an invitation for her.
See the Major Honor King Charles III Just Gave Queen Camilla
Romantasy reigns on spicy BookTok: Recommendations from the internet’s favorite genre
FTC wants to ban fake product reviews, warning that AI could make things worse
Crack in North Carolina roller coaster was seen about six to 10 days before the ride was shut down
5 things to know about Southwest's disastrous meltdown