Current:Home > MyHere'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 00:24:47
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! (6)
Related
- What happens to Donald Trump’s criminal conviction? Here are a few ways it could go
- Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine bans gender-affirming surgeries for transgender youth
- Vanderpump Rules' Ariana Madix Sues Ex Tom Sandoval Over Shared House
- UN humanitarian chief calls Gaza ‘uninhabitable’ 3 months into Israel-Hamas war
- Denver district attorney is investigating the leak of voting passwords in Colorado
- Heavy rains leave parts of England and Europe swamped in floodwaters
- 'A profound desecration': Navajo Nation asks NASA to delay moon mission with human remains
- A group representing TikTok, Meta and X sues Ohio over new law limiting kids’ use of social media
- Man is 'not dead anymore' after long battle with IRS, which mistakenly labeled him deceased
- Connecticut military veteran charged with making threats against member of Congress, VA
Ranking
- Pentagon secrets leaker Jack Teixeira set to be sentenced, could get up to 17 years in prison
- Cecil the dog ate through $4,000 in cash. Here's how his Pittsburgh owners got the money back.
- Wander Franco released while Dominican probe continues into alleged relationship with 14-year-old
- 'Memory': Jessica Chastain didn't want to make a 'Hollywood cupcake movie about dementia'
- The White Stripes drop lawsuit against Donald Trump over 'Seven Nation Army' use
- 'White Lotus' Season 3 cast revealed: Parker Posey, Jason Isaacs and more
- The Bachelorette's Tyler Cameron Wants You To Reject Restrictive New Year’s Resolutions
- New Jersey to allow teens who’ll be 18 by a general election to vote in primaries
Recommendation
-
3 Iraqis tortured at Abu Ghraib win $42M judgement against defense contractor
-
Tax season can be terrifying. Here's everything to know before filing your taxes in 2024.
-
A push to expand Medicaid has Kansas governor embracing politics and cutting against her brand
-
UN chief names a new envoy to scope out the chances of reviving Cyprus peace talks
-
A Pipeline Runs Through It
-
Ex-Ohio lawmaker is sentenced to probation for domestic violence
-
David Soul, of TV's 'Starsky and Hutch,' dies at 80
-
Nigel Lythgoe Leaves So You Think You Can Dance Amid Paula Abdul’s Sexual Assault Lawsuit