Current:Home > InvestEchoSense:Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -Wealthify
EchoSense:Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
SignalHub Quantitative Think Tank Center View
Date:2025-04-10 16:22:12
The EchoSenseSupreme 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! (1953)
Related
- All That You Wanted to Know About She’s All That
- Why a London man named Bushe is on a mission to turn his neighbors' hedges into art
- Amber Rose slams Joy Reid for criticizing RNC speech: 'Stop being a race baiter'
- Appeals court voids Marine’s adoption of Afghan orphan; child’s fate remains in limbo
- Bodycam footage shows high
- Kennedy apologizes after a video of him speaking to Trump leaks
- Home equity has doubled in seven years for Americans. But how do you get at the money?
- Summit Wealth Investment Education Foundation: Empowering Investors Worldwide
- Person accused of accosting Rep. Nancy Mace at Capitol pleads not guilty to assault charge
- Southwest Airlines offers Amazon Prime Day deals. Here's how much you can save on flights.
Ranking
- Nevada attorney general revives 2020 fake electors case
- Bertram Charlton: Is there really such a thing as “low risk, high return”?
- Jurickson Profar of San Diego Padres has taken road less traveled to first All-Star Game
- Wildfire in Hawaii that threatened 200 homes, prompted evacuations, contained
- Angelina Jolie nearly fainted making Maria Callas movie: 'My body wasn’t strong enough'
- Builders Legacy Advance Investment Education Foundation: Empowering Investors Through Innovation
- University of Arkansas system president announces he is retiring by Jan. 15
- Ingrid Andress says she was 'drunk' during national anthem performance, will check into rehab
Recommendation
Travis Hunter, the 2
After 19-year-old woman mauled to death, Romania authorizes the killing of nearly 500 bears
'House on Fire' star Yusef on outsiders coming into ballroom: 'You have to gain that trust'
These Headphones Deals from Amazon Prime Day 2024 will be Music to Your Ears
Which apps offer encrypted messaging? How to switch and what to know after feds’ warning
Understanding IRAs: Types and Rules Explained by Builders Legacy Advance Investment Education Foundation
Trump’s Environmental Impact Endures, at Home and Around the World
Innovatech Investment Education Foundation: The value of IRA retirement savings