Current:Home > StocksHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -Pinnacle Profit Strategies
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-11 20:15:33
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! (69)
Related
- Are Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp down? Meta says most issues resolved after outages
- 988: An Alternative To 911 For Mental Health
- Life expectancy in the U.S. continues to drop, driven by COVID-19
- Robert Hanssen, former FBI agent convicted of spying for Russia, dead at 79
- Senate begins final push to expand Social Security benefits for millions of people
- Drew Barrymore Steps Down as Host of 2023 MTV Movie & TV Awards 3 Days Before Show
- U.S. Geothermal Industry Heats Up as It Sees Most Gov’t Support in 25 Years
- 300 Scientists Oppose Trump Nominee: ‘More Dangerous Than Climate Change is Lying’
- Trump issues order to ban transgender troops from serving openly in the military
- Whatever happened to the caring Ukrainian neurologist who didn't let war stop her
Ranking
- McKinsey to pay $650 million after advising opioid maker on how to 'turbocharge' sales
- Priyanka Chopra Shares How Nick Jonas “Sealed the Deal” by Writing a Song for Her
- New York Passes Ambitious Climate Bill, Aiming to Meet Paris Targets
- CDC recommends new booster shots to fight omicron
- 2025 'Doomsday Clock': This is how close we are to self
- Supreme Court agrees to hear dispute over effort to trademark Trump Too Small
- Cardi B and Offset's Kids Kulture and Wave Look So Grown Up in New Family Video
- Today’s Climate: May 26, 2010
Recommendation
Selena Gomez's "Weird Uncles" Steve Martin and Martin Short React to Her Engagement
Trump attorneys meet with special counsel at Justice Dept amid documents investigation
U.S. Geothermal Industry Heats Up as It Sees Most Gov’t Support in 25 Years
Science Museums Cutting Financial Ties to Fossil Fuel Industry
Most popular books of the week: See what topped USA TODAY's bestselling books list
Tennessee woman accused of trying to hire hitman to kill wife of man she met on Match.com
Poll: One year after SB 8, Texans express strong support for abortion rights
Whatever happened to the caring Ukrainian neurologist who didn't let war stop her