Current:Home > InvestHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases-Angel Dreamer Wealth Society D1 Reviews & Insights
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View Date:2025-01-11 20:22:24
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! (2839)
Related
- Horoscopes Today, November 13, 2024
- British energy giant reports violating toxic pollutant limits at Louisiana wood pellet facilities
- Colin Jost gives foot update after injury and Olympics correspondent exit
- Federal officials investigating natural gas explosion in Maryland that killed 2
- John Krasinski Details Moment He Knew Wife Emily Blunt Was “the One”
- Arkansas officer fired after being caught on video beating inmate in back of patrol car
- Californians: Your rent may go up because of rising insurance rates
- A year later, sprawling Georgia election interference case against Donald Trump has stalled
- Dick Van Dyke says he 'fortunately' won't be around for Trump's second presidency
- Dairy Queen announces new 2024 Fall Blizzard Treat Menu: Here's when it'll be available
Ranking
- Natural gas flares sparked 2 wildfires in North Dakota, state agency says
- Arizona tribe wants feds to replace electrical transmission line after a 21-hour power outage
- Officer faces murder charge in shooting of pregnant Black woman who was accused of shoplifting
- Jurors deliberating in case of Colorado clerk Tina Peters in election computer system breach
- California Gov. Gavin Newsom will spend part of week in DC as he tries to Trump-proof state policies
- 3 killed when a train strikes a van crossing tracks in Virginia
- Kevin Durant invests in Paris Saint-Germain, adding to his ownership portfolio
- Kevin Durant invests in Paris Saint-Germain, adding to his ownership portfolio
Recommendation
-
CFP bracket prediction: SEC adds a fifth team to field while a Big Ten unbeaten falls out
-
Charli XCX and The 1975's George Daniel Pack on the PDA During Rare Outing
-
A conservative gathering provides a safe space for Republicans who aren’t on board with Trump
-
Aaron Rodgers says he regrets making comment about being 'immunized'
-
Keke Palmer Says Ryan Murphy “Ripped” Into Her Over Scream Queens Schedule
-
2024 Olympics: USA Gymnastics' Appeal for Jordan Chiles' Medal Rejected
-
Jordan Chiles medal inquiry: USA Gymnastics says arbitration panel won’t reconsider decision
-
Illinois sheriff to retire amid criticism over the killing of Sonya Massey | The Excerpt