Current:Home > reviewsHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -DollarDynamic
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-17 17:33:47
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! (79)
Related
- Selena Gomez engaged to Benny Blanco after 1 year together: 'Forever begins now'
- Lease of Gulf waters delayed by whale protection debate must continue, court rules
- Finland considers closing border crossings with Russia to stem an increase in asylum-seekers
- Prosecutors say a fatal roller coaster accident in Sweden was caused by a support arm breaking
- Paula Abdul settles lawsuit with former 'So You Think You Can Dance' co
- Biden, Xi meeting is aimed at getting relationship back on better footing, but tough issues loom
- Prosecutors say a fatal roller coaster accident in Sweden was caused by a support arm breaking
- Forty years on, 'Terms of Endearment' captures Jack Nicholson at his most iconic
- Most popular books of the week: See what topped USA TODAY's bestselling books list
- Environmental Justice a Key Theme Throughout Biden’s National Climate Assessment
Ranking
- DeepSeek: Did a little known Chinese startup cause a 'Sputnik moment' for AI?
- Mexican magnate’s firm says it’s too poor to pay US bondholders the tens of millions owed
- Mali’s leader says military has seized control of a rebel stronghold in the country’s north
- 'Are we alone?': $200 million gift from late tech mogul to fund search for extraterrestrial life
- Civic engagement nonprofits say democracy needs support in between big elections. Do funders agree?
- Colombia begins sterilization of hippos descended from pets of drug kingpin Pablo Escobar
- German union calls on train drivers to strike this week in a rancorous pay dispute
- Republican faction seeks to keep courts from interpreting Ohio’s new abortion rights amendment
Recommendation
Highlights from Trump’s interview with Time magazine
Live updates | Israeli tanks enter Gaza’s Shifa Hospital compound
Three arrested in a shooting at a Texas flea market that also killed a child and wounded 4 others
After controversy, Texas school board says transgender student can sing in school musical
What were Tom Selleck's juicy final 'Blue Bloods' words in Reagan family
Former George Santos fundraiser pleads guilty to wire fraud
Enrollment rebounds in 2023 after 2-year dip at Georgia public universities and colleges
Key US spy tool will lapse at year’s end unless Congress and the White House can cut a deal