The Supreme Court has declared affirmative action in higher education admissions unconstitutional — a decision widely expected by legal experts given the Court’s conservative composition.

Supported by the Court’s six Republican-appointed justices, the landmark ruling restricts public and private universities from considering race as a specific factor in admissions decisions. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, declared Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s policies a violation of the 14th Amendment, reversing decisions from lower courts.

The majority opinion drew criticism and condemnation from the dissenting minority — which accused the majority of “[rolling] back decades of precedent and momentous progress.” Binghamton University President Harvey Stenger emphasized a commitment to fostering a diverse student body in a statement.

“We strongly believe that a campus that embraces, supports and respects diversity in all aspects produces well-informed and better-educated students with the broad perspectives necessary for success in the 21st century,” the statement said. “[BU] is committed to a broad-based, holistic approach to reviewing student applications. This approach will allow us to continue to attract and recruit a student body that is geographically diverse, and includes those from a range of socio-economic backgrounds with a wide range of lived experiences.”

After the decision, some elected officials, both critics and supporters of the decision, advocated for the end of legacy status — a system originally created to benefit the white, wealthy and well-connected. Calls came from politicians ranging from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat, to Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican and a presidential candidate.

“If [the Supreme Court] was serious about their ludicrous ‘colorblindness’ claims, they would have abolished legacy admissions, aka affirmative action for the privileged,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter.

Elected officials from the Southern Tier added to the choir of opposition to the Court. Lea Webb, ‘04, BU’s former diversity education coordinator and a New York State senator, called the decision “regressive” in a statement.

“This decision represents the undoing of decades of work to ensure more equitable access to our institutions of higher education,” the statement said. “Affirmative action and race-conscious admissions practices are critically important to break down the very real barriers to entry that exist for Black and Brown students across our education system.”

John B. King Jr., SUNY’s chancellor, concurred, arguing that race-conscious policies have “enriched our institutions,” adding that despite these efforts, minority groups are still underrepresented as “students, faculty members and administrators.”

Supreme Court precedent supporting race-conscious admissions dates back to 1978, when affirmative action was upheld in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, though specific racial quotas were struck down. In 2003, the Court ruled that the consideration of race was permissible through a holistic review of each applicant in Grutter v. Bollinger. Both cases have now been effectively overruled.

The national implications of the case invoked a response from BU’s Student Association, which serves as the elected voice of undergraduates at the University. In a statement, the incoming Executive Board, led by Elisheva Ezor, a senior double-majoring in mathematics and business administration, called on BU’s administration to listen to marginalized students to address the “adverse effects” of the ruling.

“We must take proactive steps to address the consequences of this decision and continue to challenge inequity within higher education and the admissions process,” the E-Board wrote. “The [SA] pledges to support and advocate for the inclusion of students of color in the University’s discussions, as well as to make sure that their voices are heard in this conversation.”