Current:Home > FinanceHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -Capitatum
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
TradeEdge View
Date:2025-04-08 07:54:48
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
- Megan Fox's ex Brian Austin Green tells Machine Gun Kelly to 'grow up'
- Satellite images show massive atmospheric river that is barreling over the West Coast
- Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin apologizes for keeping hospitalization secret
- France farmers protests see 79 arrested as tractors snarl Paris traffic
- Justice Department, Louisville reach deal after probe prompted by Breonna Taylor killing
- Child Tax Credit expansion faces uncertain path in Senate after House passage
- Ellen Gilchrist, 1984 National Book Award winner for ‘Victory Over Japan,’ dies at 88
- House approves expansion for the Child Tax Credit. Here's who could benefit.
- Rylee Arnold Shares a Long
- Indiana lawmakers push ease child care regulations and incentivize industry’s workers
Ranking
- 'Squid Game' without subtitles? Duolingo, Netflix encourage fans to learn Korean
- AP Week in Pictures: North America
- Taylor Swift's Travis Kelce-themed jewelry is surprisingly affordable. Here's where to buy
- Punxsutawney Phil prepares to make his annual Groundhog Day winter weather forecast
- Justice Department, Louisville reach deal after probe prompted by Breonna Taylor killing
- The cost of hosting a Super Bowl LVIII watch party: Where wings, beer and soda prices stand
- Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus and SZA are poised to win big at the Grammys. But will they?
- `This House’ by Lynn Nottage, daughter and composer Ricky Ian Gordon, gets 2025 St. Louis premiere
Recommendation
Costco membership growth 'robust,' even amid fee increase: What to know about earnings release
Friends imprisoned for decades cleared of 1987 New Year’s killing in Times Square
The battle to change Native American logos weighs on, but some communities are reinstating them
Mobsters stole a historical painting from a family; 54 years later the FBI brought it home
Paula Abdul settles lawsuit with former 'So You Think You Can Dance' co
After Washington state lawsuit, Providence health system erases or refunds $158M in medical bills
Maine man who fled to Mexico after hit-and-run killing sentenced to 48 years
The battle to change Native American logos weighs on, but some communities are reinstating them