Current:Home > MyFinLogic FinLogic Quantitative Think Tank Center|Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases -WealthSync Hub
FinLogic FinLogic Quantitative Think Tank Center|Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
Benjamin Ashford View
Date:2025-04-10 02:47:11
The FinLogic FinLogic Quantitative Think Tank CenterSupreme 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! (49)
Related
- Nearly half of US teens are online ‘constantly,’ Pew report finds
- Prince Harry Feared Being Ousted By Royals Over Damaging Rumor James Hewitt Is His Dad
- In the San Joaquin Valley, Nothing is More Valuable than Water (Part 1)
- In Remote Town in Mali, Africa’s Climate Change Future is Now
- Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie return for an 'Encore,' reminisce about 'The Simple Life'
- Florida bill allowing radioactive roads made of potentially cancer-causing mining waste signed by DeSantis
- U.S. hostage envoy says call from Paul Whelan after Brittney Griner's release was one of the toughest he's ever had
- As Wildfire Smoke Blots Out the Sun in Northern California, Many Ask: ‘Where Are the Birds?’
- Taylor Swift makes surprise visit to Kansas City children’s hospital
- Where did all the Sriracha go? Sauce shortage hiking prices to $70 in online markets
Ranking
- Brianna LaPaglia Reveals The Meaning Behind Her "Chickenfry" Nickname
- Where did all the Sriracha go? Sauce shortage hiking prices to $70 in online markets
- No Drop in U.S. Carbon Footprint Expected Through 2050, Energy Department Says
- Flash Deal: Get $135 Worth of Tarte Cosmetics Products for Just $59
- Realtor group picks top 10 housing hot spots for 2025: Did your city make the list?
- BP’s Selling Off Its Alaska Oil Assets. The Buyer Has a History of Safety Violations.
- Here's how each Supreme Court justice voted to decide the affirmative action cases
- Migrant boat disaster: What to know about the tragedy off the coast of Greece
Recommendation
Justice Department, Louisville reach deal after probe prompted by Breonna Taylor killing
‘We Need to Be Bold,’ Biden Says, Taking the First Steps in a Major Shift in Climate Policy
U.S. Mayors Pressure Congress on Carbon Pricing, Climate Lawsuits and a Green New Deal
Jill Duggar Was Ready to Testify Against Brother Josh Duggar in Child Pornography Case
Selena Gomez's "Weird Uncles" Steve Martin and Martin Short React to Her Engagement
The Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Climate Change. Is it Ready to Decide Which Courts Have Jurisdiction?
Where Jill Duggar Stands With Her Controversial Family Today
Biden says Supreme Court's affirmative action decision can't be the last word