The US Supreme Court handed down a major decision on affirmative action on Thursday, striking down the use of race as a factor in college admissions as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts he wrote in the majority opinion that “A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be related to that student’s courage and determination.”
“Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him to assume a leadership role or to achieve a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. It is to say, the student should be treated based on his experiences as an individual, not on the basis of race,” the opinion says.
“Many universities have done the opposite for too long. And in doing so, they have wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges overcome, skills acquired, or lessons learned, but the color of his skin. history does not tolerate this choice,” the opinion states.
SUPREME COURT GRANTS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM TO A POSTAL WORKER WHO REFUSED TO WORK ON SUNDAY
Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
Harvard banners hang outside the Memorial Church on the campus of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., Friday, September 4, 2009. The Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action cases, including one over the practices of Harvard admissions. (Photo by Michael Fein/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the lead dissent, joined in part by Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who recused herself from the Harvard case because of her previous role on the Board of Supervisors from Harvard
President Biden is expected to deliver comments on the decision Thursday at 12:30 p.m.
In 2003, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was the swing vote in a historic Supreme Court case on race.
FOX NEWS SURVEY: VOTER CONFIDENCE AND CONFIDENCE IN INSTITUTIONS FIND THE GOOD
While upholding the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policies for minority law school applicants, the court’s majority led by O’Connor offered this caveat: “We expect that in 25 years , the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to foster interest. approved today.”
Fast forward 19 years, and a 6-3 conservative court majority has now blocked colleges and universities from using race as part of the competitive admissions process.
The justices decided two separate legal challenges over how Harvard University, a private institution, and the University of North Carolina, a public institution, decide who fills their classrooms.
These prominent schools say their standards have a broader social goal, endorsed by courts for decades: to promote a robust and intellectually diverse campus for future leaders.
But a coalition of Asian American students says the criteria discriminated with a “racial penalty,” holding them to a selectively higher standard than many black and Hispanic students.
READ THE SUPREME COURT’S AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OPINION – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:
The student activist group Students for Fair Admissions filed cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The group initially sued Harvard College in 2014 for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives federal funds or other federal financial assistance.” .
The lawsuit against Harvard alleged that the school’s practices penalized Asian American students and that they failed to use race-neutral practices. The North Carolina case raised the question of whether the university could reject the use of non-racial practices without showing that they would reduce the academic quality of the school or adversely affect the benefits gained from campus diversity.
JUSTICES HEAR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENTS AT HARVARD, UNC SUPREME COURT CASES
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit had ruled in Harvard’s favor, upholding the outcome of a district court trial. The district court said the evidence against Harvard was inconclusive and that “the observed discrimination” affected only a small group of Asian-American students. He ruled that SFFA had no standing in the case.
In the UNC case, a federal district court ruled in favor of the school, saying its admissions practices stood up to strict scrutiny.
Roberts said in his majority opinion that both the Harvard and UNC admissions programs “lack sufficiently focused and measurable goals to warrant the use of race, inevitably use race in a negative way, involve stereotyping racial and have no meaningful endpoints.”
“We have never allowed admissions programs to operate this way, and we will not do so today,” he said.
The Supreme Court has issued a new ruling on affirmative action. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, while agreeing with the majority opinion, he wrote a separate concurrence with his own thoughts.
The decision, he said, “sees college admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes. Such policies run counter to the our color-blind Constitution and our nation’s equality. ideal. In short, they are clearly—and boldly—unconstitutional.”
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASE: JUSTICES ALITO, ROBERTS SNAP AT HARVARD LAWYER
“While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages suffered by my race and all who suffer discrimination, I have abiding hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: That all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law,” Thomas wrote.
The affirmative action cases led to one of the most animated judicial debates to take place in the Supreme Court building this past term, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito on the grill by Harvard attorney Seth Waxman.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts had a heated exchange with Harvard lawyers over affirmative action. (Julia Nikhinson-Pool/Getty Images)
Alito asked Waxman why Asian American students regularly receive lower personal scores on their applications than other races. Waxman spoke about the justice’s questions, which made Alito frustrated with the lawyer.
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON CLASHES WITH ANTI-AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LAWYER DURING SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS
“I have yet to hear any explanation for the disparity between the personal ratings given to Asians,” Alito said.
Waxman then became tense with Roberts. The justice asked why Waxman downplayed race as a factor in admissions decisions, when according to Roberts it should have some impact, or else it wouldn’t be included.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Waxman admitted that the race was decisive “for some highly qualified candidates,” as was “being … an oboe in a year when the Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra needs an oboe.”
“We didn’t fight a civil war against the oboe players,” Roberts replied. “We fought a civil war to eliminate racial discrimination.”
Fox News’ Tyler Olson contributed to this report.
Anders Hagstrom is a reporter for Fox News Digital who covers national politics and major breaking news events. Send tips to Anders.Hagstrom@Fox.com or on Twitter: @Hagstrom_Anders.
