Current:Home > BackHere's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases-LoTradeCoin
Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
View Date:2024-12-24 08:03:04
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! (8)
Related
- Young Black and Latino men say they chose Trump because of the economy and jobs. Here’s how and why
- Search for missing hiker ends after Michigan nurse found dead near Calaveras County trail
- A deer broke into a New Jersey elementary school. Its escape was caught on police bodycams
- A Nigerian military attack mistakenly bombed a religious gathering and killed civilians
- Manhattan rooftop fire sends plumes of dark smoke into skyline
- 12 books that NPR critics and staff were excited to share with you in 2023
- Virginia police investigate explosion at house where officers were trying to serve a search warrant
- American tourist killed in shark attack in Bahamas, police say
- Volunteer firefighter accused of setting brush fire on Long Island
- Derek Chauvin returned to prison following stabbing, lawyer says
Ranking
- New wildfires burn in US Northeast while bigger blazes rage out West
- Trial to determine whether JetBlue can buy Spirit, further consolidating industry, comes to a head
- North Carolina candidate filing begins for 2024 election marked by office vacancies and remapping
- Tallahassee is not OK. 'Robbed' of a college playoff berth, FSU family crushed
- Mariah Carey's Amazon Holiday Merch Is All I Want for Christmas—and It's Selling Out Fast!
- Musician Carl Mueller III fatally stabbed in Philadelphia: 'He was brilliant'
- If you like the ManningCast, you'll probably love the double dose ESPN plans to serve up
- BaubleBar Has All the Disney Holiday Magic You Need at up to 69% Off
Recommendation
-
Republican Vos reelected as Wisconsin Assembly speaker despite losing seats, fights with Trump
-
Amy Robach and T.J. Holmes Break Silence on Affair Allegations After Year of Hell”
-
National Cookie Day 2023: How to get deals, freebies and even recipes to try at home
-
George Santos is offering personalized videos for $200
-
'America's flagship' SS United States has departure from Philadelphia to Florida delayed
-
Search for missing hiker ends after Michigan nurse found dead near Calaveras County trail
-
DOJ: Former U.S. diplomat was a secret agent for the Cuban government for decades
-
Virginia police investigate explosion at house where officers were trying to serve a search warrant