Current:Home > MyHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -ChatGPT
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-16 04:50:50
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! (5291)
Related
- The White House is cracking down on overdraft fees
- Black Death survivors gave their descendants a genetic advantage — but with a cost
- The Air Around Aliso Canyon Is Declared Safe. So Why Are Families Still Suffering?
- How Harris is listening — and speaking — about abortion rights before the midterms
- Rams vs. 49ers highlights: LA wins rainy defensive struggle in key divisional game
- I always avoided family duties. Then my dad had a fall and everything changed
- Benefits of Investing in Climate Adaptation Far Outweigh Costs, Commission Says
- Is it safe to work and commute outside? What experts advise as wildfire smoke stifles East Coast.
- Federal Spending Freeze Could Have Widespread Impact on Environment, Emergency Management
- Coming out about my bipolar disorder has led to a new deep sense of community
Ranking
- Backstage at New York's Jingle Ball with Jimmy Fallon, 'Queer Eye' and Meghan Trainor
- Shipping’s Heavy Fuel Oil Puts the Arctic at Risk. Could It Be Banned?
- Get $200 Worth of Peter Thomas Roth Anti-Aging Skincare for Just $38
- Paying for mental health care leaves families in debt and isolated
- New data highlights 'achievement gap' for students in the US
- Trump EPA Tries Again to Roll Back Methane Rules for Oil and Gas Industry
- Trump informed he is target of special counsel criminal probe
- Methane Hazard Lurks in Boston’s Aging, Leaking Gas Pipes, Study Says
Recommendation
What do we know about the mysterious drones reported flying over New Jersey?
All Biomass Is Not Created Equal, At Least in Massachusetts
What to know now that hearing aids are available over the counter
Black Death survivors gave their descendants a genetic advantage — but with a cost
US appeals court rejects Nasdaq’s diversity rules for company boards
For stomach pain and other IBS symptoms, new apps can bring relief
Why Vanessa Hudgens Is Thinking About Eloping With Fiancé Cole Tucker
Tom Holland says he's taking a year off after filming The Crowded Room