Current:Home > InvestHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -Visionary Wealth Guides
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
Burley Garcia View
Date:2025-04-06 18:47:49
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! (983)
Related
- NHL in ASL returns, delivering American Sign Language analysis for Deaf community at Winter Classic
- Get 4 Pairs of Sweat-Wicking Leggings With 14,100+ 5-Star Amazon Reviews for $39 During Prime Day 2023
- New York City Begins Its Climate Change Reckoning on the Lower East Side, the Hard Way
- In a Famed Game Park Near the Foot of Mount Kilimanjaro, the Animals Are Giving Up
- Kylie Jenner Shows Off Sweet Notes From Nieces Dream Kardashian & Chicago West
- Lift Your Face in Just 5 Minutes and Save $80 on the NuFace Toning Device on Prime Day 2023
- Musk reveals Twitter ad revenue is down 50% as social media competition mounts
- Keep Your Car Clean and Organized With These 15 Prime Day 2023 Deals
- Selena Gomez engaged to Benny Blanco after 1 year together: 'Forever begins now'
- New Wind and Solar Are Cheaper Than the Costs to Operate All But One Coal-Fired Power Plant in the United States
Ranking
- Grammy nominee Teddy Swims on love, growth and embracing change
- Chipotle testing a robot, dubbed Autocado, that makes guacamole
- Nikki and Brie Garcia Share the Story Behind Their Name Change
- Illinois Put a Stop to Local Governments’ Ability to Kill Solar and Wind Projects. Will Other Midwestern States Follow?
- Friday the 13th luck? 13 past Mega Millions jackpot wins in December. See top 10 lottery prizes
- The ‘Environmental Injustice of Beauty’: The Role That Pressure to Conform Plays In Use of Harmful Hair, Skin Products Among Women of Color
- Outrage over man who desecrated Quran prompts protesters to set Swedish Embassy in Iraq on fire
- Shawn Johnson Is Pregnant, Expecting Baby No. 3 With Husband Andrew East
Recommendation
Krispy Kreme offers a free dozen Grinch green doughnuts: When to get the deal
Do Solar Farms Lower Property Values? A New Study Has Some Answers
RHOM's Guerdy Abraira Proudly Debuts Shaved Head as She Begins Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer
Teen Mom 2's Nathan Griffith Arrested for Battery By Strangulation
Federal appeals court upholds $14.25 million fine against Exxon for pollution in Texas
Drowning Deaths Last Summer From Flooding in Eastern Kentucky’s Coal Country Linked to Poor Strip-Mine Reclamation
Appeals court halts order barring Biden administration communications with social media companies
Navigator’s Proposed Carbon Pipeline Struggles to Gain Support in Illinois