Current:Home > FinanceHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -Quantum Capital Pro
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View
Date:2025-04-13 20:02:23
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! (86)
Related
- Off the Grid: Sally breaks down USA TODAY's daily crossword puzzle, Triathlon
- In South Asia, Vehicle Exhaust, Agricultural Burning and In-Home Cooking Produce Some of the Most Toxic Air in the World
- Despite GOP Gains in Virginia, the State’s Landmark Clean Energy Law Will Be Hard to Derail
- San Francisco is repealing its boycott of anti-LGBT states
- A South Texas lawmaker’s 15
- Warming Trends: Weather Guarantees for Your Vacation, Plus the Benefits of Microbial Proteins and an Urban Bias Against the Environment
- Mattel unveils a Barbie with Down syndrome
- Inside Clean Energy: Taking Stock of the Energy Storage Boom Happening Right Now
- Could Bill Belichick, Robert Kraft reunite? Maybe in Pro Football Hall of Fame's 2026 class
- California Considers ‘Carbon Farming’ As a Potential Climate Solution. Ardent Proponents, and Skeptics, Abound
Ranking
- Finally, good retirement news! Southwest pilots' plan is a bright spot, experts say
- What Does Climate Justice in California Look Like?
- Well, It's Still Pride Is Reason Enough To Buy These 25 Rainbow Things
- Latest IPCC Report Marks Progress on Climate Justice
- Trump suggestion that Egypt, Jordan absorb Palestinians from Gaza draws rejections, confusion
- Complex Models Now Gauge the Impact of Climate Change on Global Food Production. The Results Are ‘Alarming’
- New York’s ‘Deliveristas’ Are at the Forefront of Cities’ Sustainable Transportation Shake-up
- The U.S. economy is losing steam. Bank woes and other hurdles are to blame.
Recommendation
Krispy Kreme offers a free dozen Grinch green doughnuts: When to get the deal
What went wrong at Silicon Valley Bank? The Fed is set to release a postmortem report
Amy Schumer Crashes Joy Ride Cast's Press Junket in the Most Epic Way
Precision agriculture technology helps farmers - but they need help
Person accused of accosting Rep. Nancy Mace at Capitol pleads not guilty to assault charge
A ‘Living Shoreline’ Takes Root in New York’s Jamaica Bay
Ecuador’s High Court Rules That Wild Animals Have Legal Rights
Inside Clean Energy: For Offshore Wind Energy, Bigger is Much Cheaper