Kayla Epstein
US reporter

In his opinion, Justice Roberts held that the universities' admissions programmes violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

The amendment was ratified in 1868 in reaction to the end of the Civil War waged between the states over the issue of slavery, and intended in large part to protect and impart rights upon the recently freed black population.

Roberts said Harvard and the University of North Carolina ran afoul of the equal protection clause with their admissions policies.

Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, called it "ill founded" to use the statute to end a programme that had helped black students overcome systemic disparities in education.

The amendment "was most fundamentally about discrimination against black people," Stone said.

"That’s what the concern was at the time."

In present-day United States, black students often still do not enjoy the same educational advantages as white students, Stone said.

There is a large body of research that points to evidence of racial disparities in American education, according to the Government Accountability Office, external.

Image source, Getty Images

The president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) civil rights organisation has slammed today's Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action.

"The worst thing about affirmative action is that it created a Clarence Thomas who benefited from the program and is now in a position where he is going to deny many young talented African Americans an opportunity," Derrick Johnson said in an interview with the MSNBC cable network.

"Historically, the problem has been that institutions of higher learning, corporations and other entities have denied well-qualified African Americans and other individuals access in terms of admissions and employment because of their race."

Clarence Thomas, a black man who has served on the court since 1991, has long been one of its most conservative members and concurred in the majority opinion this morning.

Nomia Iqbal
BBC News, Washington

Yes they can mention it, especially in their personal statement.

Students applying will still be able talk about their identity, if their race motivated them to pursue that course or other ways it contributed to their decision to apply.

But universities now can't use race as a factor in their process when considering who to let in.

It is possible some universities may have varying advice and decide in the end to forbid candidates from mentioning race.

The University of North Carolina, one of two institutions whose admissions policies have been struck down, says it remains "firmly committed to bringing together talented students with different perspectives and life experiences".

In a statement, Chancellor Kevin M. Guskiewicz adds UNC will continue to "make an affordable, high-quality education accessible to the people of North Carolina and beyond".

Jessica Parker
Reporting from Washington DC

TV network crews are lined up outside the Supreme Court to mark this hugely significant decision.

Few observers are surprised at the outcome of this long-awaited ruling, given the conservative majority of the court.

But no one is under-playing it.

US correspondents are describing it as a “major” and “landmark” judgement that’s come today from their country’s highest court.

Race-based affirmative action policies, introduced in the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, were designed to boost the number of black and Hispanic students on college campuses.

Supporters say they help traditionally underrepresented groups while ensuring the student body reflects the diversity of the wider population. Opponents say it's reverse discrimination.

Many universities in the US did not allow minority students to attend until the 1960s.

Although race-based quotas have been deemed unconstitutional for decades, race was still one of several factors - such as economic status, gender or religious belief - that are looked at alongside a student's academic scores and personal qualities.

The Obamas have released seperate statements on the striking down of race-based affirmative action. Here are some excerpts from their statements.

Statement by President Obama: "Like any policy, affirmative action wasn’t perfect. But it allowed generations of students like Michelle and me to prove we belonged. Now it’s up to all of us to give young people the opportunities they deserve—and help students everywhere benefit from new perspectives.

Statement by Michelle Obama: "Back in college, I was one of the few Black students on my campus, and I was proud of getting into such a respected school. I knew I’d worked hard for it. But still, I sometimes wondered if people thought I got there because of affirmative action. It was a shadow that students like me couldn’t shake, whether those doubts came from the outside or inside our own minds. But the fact is this: I belonged.

"So today, my heart breaks for any young person out there who’s wondering what their future holds — and what kinds of chances will be open to them. And while I know the strength and grit that lies inside kids who have always had to sweat a little more to climb the same ladders, I hope and I pray that the rest of us are willing to sweat a little, too."

Nomia Iqbal
BBC News, Washington

In short, no.

Whilst it focuses specifically on stopping race as one of many factors in admissions, universities can still do things aimed at achieving diversity such as creating outreach programmes.

There are so many things that can still define what a diverse student body means: students' experiences, where they grew up, what their interests and extra-curricular activities are.

It's widely thought socio economic experiences, which heavily correlate to race, will be the key here with higher education institution focusing more on that.

In the UNC case, the three liberal justices on the Supreme Court - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - dissented from the conservative majority.

In the Harvard case, Sotomayor and Kagan again dissented, while Jackson - who serves on the Harvard Board of Overseers - recused herself.

Sotomayor writes that today's decision "subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education", a move she says "rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress".

She argues the ruling "cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter".

Jackson - a Biden appointee and the first black woman ever to sit on the court - goes further: "With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces 'colourblindness for all' by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life."

"And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences," she adds, "the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems."

Anthony Zurcher
BBC North America correspondent

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion, drew a direct line from the landmark court case Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down segregation in education, to this opinion on college admissions.

Up until now, the court had taken a somewhat more nuanced view toward college admissions, holding that quotas and admissions set-asides for minority candidates were unconstitutional, but that a more “holistic” approach to admissions, to create a diverse student body, could pass muster.

That ended today.

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” the chief justice writes.

Holly Honderich
Reporting from the Supreme Court

Minutes after the Supreme Court’s conservative justices voted against race-based college admissions, Christopher Banks gives reporters his reaction: “It’s angst, it’s frustration, it’s annoyance”.

Banks works to support black Americans as director of education at the Urban League of Portland.

Justices can be "conservative, liberal, that’s fine,” he says.

"But you don’t stop social mobility in the United States. This opinion is a hindrance, this decision hinders social mobility.”

The final paragraphs of Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion are perhaps the clearest distillation of how the court has ruled in this pair of cases.

"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," he writes.

But, he argues, that impact should be tied to something else such as "that student’s courage and determination" or "that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university".

"In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race."

"Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin," he concludes.

"Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice."

Holly Honderich
Reporting from the Supreme Court

It was quiet outside the Supreme Court this morning, with reporters and tourists far outnumbering the handful of demonstrators.

Melissa Byrne, who leads a group advocating for the end of student debt, called the court’s decision to bar affirmative action “heart-breaking”.

“Systematic racism is so endemic in America,” she said.

“And instead of working to improve access to higher eduction, [these people] want to decrease access and promote racist tropes.”

We can expect to hear from the White House on this decision, which has serious ramifications for US university admissions.

For now, a White House official says administration officials are "reviewing" the decision to strike down affirmative action.

In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts writes that the nation's highest court has, to date, "permitted race-based admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions".

"University programs must comply with strict scrutiny, they may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and - at some point - they must end," he says.

He also goes on to note that "however well intentioned and implemented in good faith" the admissions processes followed by Harvard and UNC may be, they "fail each of these criteria".

Major implications for private and public universitiespublished at 15:19 British Summer Time 29 June 2023

15:19 BST 29 June 2023

Anthony Zurcher
BBC North America correspondent

This is a sweeping decision, citing the US Constitution itself to rule that the universities cannot consider race in their admissions policies.

It will have major implications not just in public colleges, whose admissions have always been more closely scrutinised by the government, but also private universities.

This is the conservative-dominated Supreme Court once again flexing its muscles, as only the three liberal justices dissented from the case.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina are in violation of the US Constitution.

A majority six of the nine justices on the bench find that the manner in which these two colleges admit new students "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," reads the lengthy opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The Supreme Court has also ruled on two other cases, but not on whether President Joe Biden's plan to offer student loan relief is constitutional.

The decision will be released tomorrow.

We're going over the judgment now, which has been posted on the Supreme Court's website.

If you'd like to read it in full yourself, it's available here, external.

US colleges must change admissions policies that consider a student's race when deciding who get places, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Stick with us as we go through the judgement.