- In the majority:
- Gorsuch (Trump)
- Barrett (Trump)
- Kavanaugh (Trump)
- Thomas (Bush)
- Roberts (Bush)
- Alito (Bush)
Dissenting:
- Sotomayor (Obama)
- Kagan (Obama)
- Jackson (Biden)
Harvard had been admitting students in such a way that your relative chance of acceptance correlated to the below table. An Asian student in the 10th decile (4.0 GPA and 1600 SAT score) had a 13% chance of admission while a Black student in the 10th decile (4.0 GPA and 1600 SAT score) had a 56% chance of admission.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion:
For the reasons provided above, the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.
At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. See, e.g., 4 App. in No. 21–707, at 17251726, 1741; Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 20–1199, at 10. But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.
It is so ordered.
Thomas separately concurred:
Given the history of discrimination against Asian Americans, especially their history with segregated schools, it seems particularly incongruous to suggest that a past history of segregationist policies toward blacks should be remedied at the expense of Asian American college applicants.
