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:2024-12-24 09:39:41
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! (38)
Related
- Taylor Swift Politely Corrects Security’s Etiquette at Travis Kelce’s Chiefs Game
- Mia Goth Sued for Allegedly Kicking Background Actor in the Head
- Genocide case against Israel: Where does the rest of the world stand on the momentous allegations?
- As shutdown looms, congressional leaders ready stopgap bill to extend government funding to March
- Ford agrees to pay up to $165 million penalty to US government for moving too slowly on recalls
- U.S. launches another strike on Houthi rebels in Yemen
- Messi 'super team' enters 2024 as MLS Cup favorite. Can Inter Miami balance the mania?
- Lynn Yamada Davis, Cooking with Lynja TikTok chef, dies at age 67
- Charles Hanover: A Summary of the UK Stock Market in 2023
- Top Western envoys review Ukraine peace formula to end Russia’s war as Zelenskyy plans Davos visit
Ranking
- Man waives jury trial in killing of Georgia nursing student
- Get ready for transparent TV: Tech giants show off 'glass-like' television screens at CES
- Colorado spoils Bronny James' first start with fierce comeback against USC
- Chicago Bulls fans boo late GM Jerry Krause during team's Ring of Honor celebration
- Police capture Tennessee murder suspect accused of faking his own death on scenic highway
- 2023 was officially the hottest year ever. These charts show just how warm it was — and why it's so dangerous.
- Judge orders Trump to pay nearly $400,000 for New York Times' legal fees
- Mia Goth Sued for Allegedly Kicking Background Actor in the Head
Recommendation
-
FBI offers up to $25,000 reward for information about suspect behind Northwest ballot box fires
-
Florida's immigration law brings significant unintended consequences, critics say
-
Maldives leader says his country’s small size isn’t a license to bully in apparent swipe at India
-
As shutdown looms, congressional leaders ready stopgap bill to extend government funding to March
-
Mississippi governor intent on income tax cut even if states receive less federal money
-
Senior Pakistani politician meets reclusive Taliban supreme leader in Afghanistan
-
Authorities say 4 people found dead in another suspected drowning of migrants off northern France.
-
Dog rescued after surviving 60-foot fall from Michigan cliff and spending night alone on Lake Superior shoreline