(BOSTON) — Federal prosecutors in Boston are dropping charges against two parents in the college admissions scandal known as Varsity Blues, according to a court filing Thursday.
The decision followed a ruling from the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacating the convictions of Gamal Abdelaziz and John Wilson who were charged with making payments to university accounts so employees would secure their children’s admission as athletic recruits.
Dismissing the charges is a rare blemish for prosecutors who won convictions in about 50 cases tied to the widespread scheme to get kids into college through bribery and cheating.
The two wealthy fathers – Wilson, a former Staples and Gap executive and Abdelaziz, a former Wynn Resorts executive – were found guilty as charged in 2021 in the first trial stemming from the scheme.
While the two men argued they thought their payments to scheme mastermind Rick Singer were legitimate donations, the jury agreed with prosecutors they amounted to bribes to buy their kids’ way into the University of Southern California as athletic recruits even though the kids were nowhere near varsity material.
Abdelaziz paid $300,000, Wilson $220,000, in a case that raised questions about privilege and reaffirmed suspicions about the fairness of the college admissions process.
The trial featured audio recordings of phone calls between Singer, who pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate, and each of the men that prosecutors said proved the dads knew this was a scheme.
“Sabrina is loving USC!” Abdelaziz greeted Singer on one phone call when Singer informed him, “I’m not going to tell the IRS that your $300,000 was paid to Donna Heinel at USC to get Sabrina into school even though she wasn’t a legitimate basketball player at that level.”
“You’re okay with that right?” Singer asked. “Of course,” Abdelaziz replied.
“I’m going to say your $300,000 payment was made to our foundation to help underserved kids,” Singer said. “I just want to make sure you’re okay with that.”
“I am,” Abdelaziz said.
In reversing, the First Circuit agreed with the defense that admission slots cannot be considered property fraud because the slots are not property and if USC was the victim, as the government alleged, there’s no way the payments could be bribes because “a payment to an alleged victim cannot constitute a bribe as a matter of law.”
“In short, the government has brought a property fraud case that has nothing to do with property; a bribery case that has nothing to do with bribery; and an aiding and abetting case where the alleged principal is the government’s own cooperating witness,” the defense argued before the appellate court.
(NEW YORK) — Virgin Galactic is launching its first fully commercial flight of the SpaceShipTwo space plane, the company announced.
The ship will carry four people and launch around 11:00 a.m. ET, which will be available to watch via livestream. The trip is expected to last about 90 minutes.
The mission, known as Galactic 01, will see the team conduct 13 experiments examining thermo-fluid dynamics and the development of sustainable materials in microgravity conditions.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Jun 29, 12:05 PM EDT
Galatic 01 crew returns to Earth
Virgin Galactic announced the pilots, crew and VSS Unity spaceplane have safely returned to Earth.
The entire trip — from takeoff to reaching the intended altitude of 50 miles above the planet’s surface to landing — took about an hour and a half.
For future trips, the company said it plans to take paying customers to the edge of outer space. About 800 tickets have already been sold for between $200,000 and $450,000.
Jun 29, 11:56 AM EDT
Breaking down the Galactic 01 flight
The group took off on VSSUnity, a suborbital rocket-powered crewed spaceplane, attached to a bigger “mothership” aircraft called VMS Eve.
VMS Eve launched similar to a commercial airplane and, when it reached more than 40,000 feet, it released VSS Unity, firing its rocket engine.
VSS Unity then reached its intended altitude of 50 miles above Earth’s surface, which is considered the edge of outer space. After spending a few minutes in zero-gravity, it began free-falling and heading back to the spaceport in New Mexico for landing.
Jun 29, 11:26 AM EDT
Virgin Galactic’s spaceplane has taken off
Virgin Galactic announced its spaceplane, VSS Unity, has taken off from the spaceport in New Mexico and is currently climbing to its altitude goal, 50 miles above Earth.
“VSS Unity is currently climbing to release altitude. Our #Galactic01 crew from the @ItalianAirForce & @CNRsocial_, are preparing to conduct 13 scientific research experiments throughout the stages of flight,” the company tweeted.
Jun 29, 10:48 AM EDT
These are some of the experiments the Galactic 01 crew will conduct
During the Galactic 01 mission, the four-person crew are conducting 13 experiments, the company said.
Some will be related to space such as measuring cosmic radiation in the mesosphere, between 30 and 50 miles above Earth, an altitude where limited data has been collected.
Others involve thermo-fluid dynamics including whether certain liquids transform into gases at high altitudes and others will develop specific foams that are very hard to produce on Earth.
The last will be related to human vitals and include examining how circadian rhythms are affected by microgravity, studying any changes in the cells that line blood vessels and comparing heart and skill MRIs before and after the flight.
Jun 29, 9:56 AM EDT
Meet the crew aboard Galactic 01
Galactic 01 will be carrying four passengers when it takes its suborbital flight, about 50 miles above Earth.
Among them are two members of the Italian Ari Force, Col. Walter Villadei, the mission commander, and Lt. Col. Angelo Landolfi, a physician.
Villadei will be wearing a smart suit to measure his biometric data and physiological responses and Landolfi will measure cognitive performance in microgravity as well as studing how certain liquids and solids mix in microgravity, the company said.
Pantaleone Carlucci, an engineer with the National Research Council of Italy, will also be on board to examine the crew members’ heart rates, brain functions and other health vitals during spaceflight.
Lastly is Colin Bennett, an astronaut instructor with Virgin Galactic, to assess the experience during the mission. Bennett was a passenger onboard the company’s 2021 flight that included Branson.
Jun 29, 9:20 AM EDT
What is Virgin Galactic?
Virgin Galactic is a spaceflight company founded by British businessman Richard Branson.
The company says its goal is to take paying customers to the edge of the space, in a similar vein to Jeff Bezos’s company Blue Origin.
In 2021, Virgin Galactic received approval from the U.S. government to take customers on spaceflights.
(NEW YORK) — The flagship Tiffany & Co. store in Manhattan caught fire on Thursday, months after the renovated jewelry store’s grand reopening, the New York City Fire Department said.
An underground transformer caught fire Thursday morning, engulfing the store’s iconic Midtown building in grey smoke.
The FDNY said no smoke made it into the newly refurbished Tiffany’s store.
The store reopened in April after renovations that took more than three years to complete, according to a company announcement and a government filing.
The fire department said the call came in at 9:38 a.m., before the store opens at 10 a.m., for a fire in an electrical vault.
Two people suffered minor injuries, officials said. Nearly 100 people were evacuated from the building on Fifth Avenue.
ConEd is currently repairing underground electrical equipment.
Tiffany’s did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
A Tiffany’s press announcement in April celebrating the renovated store called it “one of the largest stores in Manhattan.”
The cost of the renovation was not immediately available but in a 2020 financial filing the company said it would require “significant capital investment.”
Revenue at the flagship store represented less than 10% of worldwide sales over each of the three years preceding 2020, the filing said.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
(NEW YORK) — Students debated the fairness of a landmark Supreme Court decision on Thursday that sets new limits on race as a factor in admissions to public and private colleges and universities.
The court held that the current race-conscious admissions policies in place at the University of North Carolina and Harvard University violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, effectively upending more than 40 years of legal precedent that supports consideration of race in college admissions.
The decision does appear to leave open the opportunity for applicants to address race in an essay, for instance, stating that “nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.”
For Bunmi Omisore, a student attending Duke University, addressing in an essay how race has impacted her as an African American woman would be difficult.
“If I were applying to college today, I would have to write about those traumas in my Common App essay. I would have to write about those traumas and those very hard experiences for admissions officers to accept the overwhelming truth that we all know — which is that it is hard to be a Black person in America. And I don’t think that’s fair,” Omisore told David Muir in an ABC News Special Report.
For students applying under the new standard, it is “going to be hard to see themselves as someone outside of their race” if they can only address it through an essay, as opposed to simply disclosing it as one factor among many considered in the admissions process, Omisore said.
“I think that now that students are forced to talk about racial discrimination, and their experiences with it, their obstacles with it in their college essays, they’re now being known by their race first, and by their academics and otherwise other experiences second,” she said.
Alex Shieh, a prospective student at Brown University, meanwhile countered that the high court’s ruling allows educational institutions to “view students for who they are as individuals.”
“I think this is a win for students all across America, because we shouldn’t be judging students based on their race when we’re deciding who gets in to what schools,” Shieh told Muir. “I think that by getting rid of affirmative action, now we look at the individual student and what they’ve accomplished, and we can look at what barriers they’ve overcome.”
Shieh said that as an Asian American applicant the idea of Brown’s admissions office considering his race “does make me feel a little bit uncomfortable.”
“Because that’s not something that I can control or that anyone can control,” he said. “I think that it’s unfair to judge someone based on that when there are really so many better ways to judge students — based on their character, based on their accomplishments.”
The Supreme Court had repeatedly ruled since 1978 that schools may consider the race of applicants in pursuing educational benefits from a diverse student body, so long as it was one factor among many considered and the schools did not use a quota system.
Thursday’s decision sided in part with Students for Fair Admissions, a conservative group that argued that the affirmative action policies at UNC and Harvard discriminated against Asian American applicants.
The court said that it has “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.”
Ahead of the highly anticipated ruling, the Common App, which is used by a million students each year to apply to several colleges at once, had already updated its systems to allow schools to hide the race/ethnicity of an applicant from their admissions teams.
ABC News’ Devin Dwyer and Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the Supreme Court’s conservative majority of a “let-them-eat-cake obliviousness” on the issue of race in its landmark ruling on affirmative action.
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the way Harvard University and the University of North Carolina use race-conscious admissions policies, stating they violated the equal protections clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the opinion, said the schools’ programs had employed race “in a negative manner” and lacked meaningful end points. Instead, the court said institutions of higher education can only consider how race has impacted an individual applicant through their personal experiences or narrative.
“In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. “Many universities have for too long done just the opposite.”
The court’s three liberal justices — Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — dissented.
Jackson, the first Black woman to serve on the bench, called the decision a “tragedy for us all.”
“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” she wrote in a dissent in the UNC case. “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, 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,” she continued.
“No one benefits from ignorance. Although formal race linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today’s ruling makes things worse, not better.”
Justice Sotomayor, who has publicly praised the impact of affirmative action on her education and career, also said “entrenched racial inequality remains a reality today.”
“Ignoring race will not equalize a society that is racially unequal,” she wrote.
Justice Thomas, the court’s only Black man, has a sharply different view on affirmative action’s role in his life. He’s called the programs paternalistic and that he felt stigmatized after attending Yale Law School at a time when his race was taken into consideration.
In a rare move, Thomas read his concurring opinion aloud in court on Thursday and responded to some of Jackson’s arguments.
“Rather than focusing on individuals as individuals, her dissent focuses on the historical subjugation of black Americans, invoking statistical racial gaps to argue in favor of defining and categorizing individuals by their race,” Thomas wrote.
“As she sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of black Americans still determining our lives today … I strongly disagree.”
(NEW YORK) — Charges have been dropped against Jordan Williams, a man accused of fatally stabbing a 34-year-old homeless man on the New York City subway earlier this month.
Williams, 20, had been charged with criminal possession of a weapon with intent to use and felony manslaughter, according to court records.
The incident happened on a J train in Brooklyn on June 13. Williams, who did not stay at the scene, was taken into custody several stops away, still on the same train, according to court records and New York ABC station WABC.
“Our office conducted an impartial and thorough investigation of this tragic case, which included review of multiple videos and interviews with all available witnesses, and that evidence was fairly presented to a grand jury. The charges against Jordan Williams have been dismissed,” the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office said in a statement to ABC News.
The district attorney’s office said using deadly force is justified in cases where a person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend themselves from the imminent use of deadly or physical force.
Video reviewed by investigators showed the homeless man apparently harassing subway riders, according to WABC, which led to a fight with Williams before the deadly stabbing.
An attorney representing Williams did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
The incident has drawn comparisons to the death of Jordan Neely, a homeless man who was killed by a passenger on a New York City subway in May. Neely was held in a chokehold for several minutes, according to police and bystander video of the incident.
Former U.S. Marine Daniel Penny was placed under arrest for second-degree manslaughter in the incident after he surrendered to the NYPD.
Neely was allegedly harassing passengers and making threats, according to the NYPD. Police sources told ABC News that Penny was not specifically being threatened by Neely when he intervened.
Penny pleaded not guilty and was released on bond. His attorneys maintained Penny never intended to kill Neely and was just trying to protect himself and others.
(WASHINGTON) — Lawmakers, legal experts, presidential candidates — past and present — and others are reacting on Thursday to a landmark ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court setting new limits on the use of affirmative action in college and university admissions.
In a speech from the White House, President Joe Biden tore into the decision, casting it as a step backward.
The court held, in a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina’s admissions programs violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
While the court’s conservative wing ruled against affirmative action, the three liberal-leaning justices dissented.
The Supreme Court had repeatedly ruled since 1978 schools may consider the race of applicants in pursuing educational benefits from a diverse student body, so long as they did not use a quota system.
But on Thursday, Roberts, writing for the majority, found that Harvard and UNC’s “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,” Roberts continued.
Below are reactions from notable figures to the ruling:
Joe Biden
“The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions, and I strongly, strongly disagree with the court’s decision,” the president said in his White House speech Thursday afternoon.
He added that “I believe our colleges are stronger when they are racially diverse. Our nation is stronger because we are tapping into the full range of talent in this nation.”
He also said he is ordering the U.S. Education Department to examine legacy admissions and “other systems that expand privilege.”
After delivering his remarks, Biden was asked by a reporter if the Supreme Court — governed by a 6-3 conservative majority — is a “rogue court,” to which he responded that it is not a “normal court.”
Universities in the ruling
UNC in a statement said that it was disappointed in the decision but reiterated its commitment to diversity in its student body.
“Carolina remains firmly committed to bringing together talented students with different perspectives and life experiences and continues to make an affordable, high-quality education accessible to the people of North Carolina and beyond. While not the outcome we hoped for, we will carefully review the Supreme Court’s decision and take any steps necessary to comply with the law,” UNC Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz said in a statement.
Harvard, too, released a statement insisting it would not take its eye off the goal of maintaining a diverse institution.
“We write today to reaffirm the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences. That principle is as true and important today as it was yesterday,” the school’s leadership said in a statement.
Political candidates
Republican presidential hopeful Mike Pence hailed the decision, saying in a statement: “There is no place for discrimination based on race in the United States, and I am pleased that the Supreme Court has put an end to this egregious violation of civil and constitutional rights in admissions processes, which only served to perpetuate racism. I am honored to have played a role in appointing three of the Justices that ensured today’s welcomed decision, and as President I will continue to appoint judges who will strictly apply the law rather than twisting it to serve woke and progressive ends.”
Vivek Ramaswamy, another GOP 2024 candidate and a biotech entrepreneur, wrote on social media that “affirmative action is a badly failed experiment: time to put a nail in the coffin & restore colorblind meritocracy.”
A spokesperson for a political group supporting former President Donald Trump’s own reelection bid tied the ruling to Trump’s own record in the White House, because three of the justices in the majority were nominated by him to the high court.
“President Donald Trump made today’s historic decision to end the racist college admissions process possible because he delivered on his promise to appoint constitutionalist justices,” the spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, said. “America is a better nation as a result of the historic rulings led by Donald Trump’s three Supreme Court nominees.”
Trump himself later said the ruling marked “a great day for America.”
“This is the ruling everyone was waiting and hoping for and the result was amazing. It will also keep us competitive with the rest of the world. Our greatest minds must be cherished and that’s what this wonderful day has brought. We’re going back to all merit-based—and that’s the way it should be!” he said in a statement to ABC News’ Rachel Scott.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump’s nearest primary competitor, tweeted that the Supreme Court “correctly upheld the Constitution and ended discrimination by colleges and universities.”
“College admissions should be based on merit and applicants should not be judged on their race or ethnicity,” he wrote.
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the only Black Republican in the Senate, also lauded the ruling, casting it as a sign of the progress that the country is making on race.
“This is a good day for America. Honestly, this is the day where we understand that being judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin is what our constitution wants. We are continuing to work on forming this more perfect union. Today is better than yesterday, this year better than last year, this decade better than last decade. The progress that we’re seeing in this nation is palpable,” he said on Fox News.
Members of Congress
Various lawmakers in Washington quickly flooded Twitter with reactions, with Republicans celebrating the ruling as, in their words, a victory for fairness.
“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is a welcome victory for countless students across the country — academia’s ivory towers should not divide and promote preferences based on the color of one’s skin. In America, fairness is the key to educational opportunity, where one’s success is judged by merit rather than arbitrary quotas,” North Carolina Rep. Virginia Foxx, the chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said in a statement.
“Affirmative action forces colleges to put students into a box. It discredits the hard work and diverse backgrounds that countless applicants have, and requires colleges to value one single characteristic above others. This is wrong and un-American,” tweeted Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn.
And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said, in part, “For decades, the Court turned a blind eye as higher education prioritized illegal social engineering over merit. Today’s rulings make clear that colleges may not continue discriminating against bright and ambitious students based on the color of their skin.”
Democrats, meanwhile, lamented the decision as a blow to equity.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down affirmative action is a devastating blow to our education system across the country. Affirmative action has been a tool to break down systemic barriers and we must continue to advance our ideals of inclusivity & opportunity for all,” New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, one of three Black senators, tweeted.
“The Court’s decision to overturn long-standing precedent of Affirmative Action is a fatal blow to equitable & accessible education for all. Failing to consider race as a factor in admissions turns a blind eye to systemic failures of academic institutions to pursue equity,” added Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York called the majority’s “misguided” ruling a “giant roadblock in our country’s march toward racial justice. … Nevertheless, we will not be daunted or deterred by this decision and we reaffirm our commitment to fighting for equal educational opportunities for all.”
Outside experts, observers and students
Affirmative action has contributed to the rise in students of color attending colleges and universities, experts told ABC News.
Researchers fear the progress made in racial equity in higher education will be reversed, even though they say affirmative action has not been a perfect solution.
“Historically, some of these places like [the University of North Carolina], you literally couldn’t go to UNC if you’re Black,” said Natasha Warikoo, a sociologist at Tufts University and researcher of racial inequity in education.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement Thursday that “the Department of Justice remains committed to promoting student diversity in higher education using all available legal tools. In the coming weeks, we will work with the Department of Education to provide resources to college and universities on what admissions practices and programs remain lawful following the Court’s decision.”
Bunmi Omisore, a student attending Duke University and UNC, told ABC News anchor David Muir during a special report on the network that the decision would not only force students to relive “trauma” in their college applications but would actually define them more by their race.
“The one thing that really is making me sad, I’ll just say today, is that my identity has to be my race, the struggles that I’ve gone through, the trauma I’ve gone through as an African American woman in the United States. If I were applying for college today, I would have to write about those traumas in my common app essay. I would have to write about those traumas and those very hard experiences for admissions officers to accept the overwhelming truth that we all know, which is that it is hard to be a Black person in America. And I don’t think that’s fair,” Omisore said.
“I think that now that students are forced to talk about racial discrimination and their experiences and their obstacles in their college essays, they’re now being known by their race first and by their academics and otherwise, other experiences second because they have to put that in the forefront to prove their experiences through racism in the United States.”
Alex Shieh, a prospective Brown University student, disagreed, telling Muir that the decision could help students be judged on their individual merits while recognizing the different ways racial identities are experienced.
“I think that by getting rid of affirmative action, now we look at the individual student and what they’ve accomplished, and we can look at what barriers they’ve overcome, but we view them as an individual first and foremost as opposed to just viewing them as a blob in an amorphous, larger racial group,” Shieh said.
“For most people, race is just a characteristic, it’s sort of the way that your body manifests,” Shieh said. “And I think for some students that does play a role in how they experience the world, but for some students it doesn’t. And I think that allowing them that option to express that in an essay, for instance, affords much more freedom, because race doesn’t affect everybody the same way.”
Edward Blum, the conservative activist who has led the legal battle against affirmative action for years and organized the group of Asian American students who brought the cases in Thursday’s ruling, similarly celebrated the decision.
“The polarizing, stigmatizing and unfair jurisprudence that allowed colleges and universities to use a student’s race and ethnicity as a factor to admit or reject them has been overruled. These discriminatory admission practices undermined the integrity of our country’s civil rights laws,” he said. “Ending racial preferences in college admissions is an outcome that the vast majority of all races and ethnicities will celebrate. A university doesn’t have real diversity when it simply assembles students who look different but come from similar backgrounds and act, talk, and think alike.”
The Obamas
Former first lady Michelle Obama wrote about her own experience as one of the few Black students on her college campus and said in a statement that “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.”
“Today is a reminder that we’ve got to do the work not just to enact policies that reflect our values of equity and fairness, but to truly make those values real in all of our schools, workplaces, and neighborhood,” she said.
Former President Barack Obama, in a shorter statement, said: “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.”
ABC News’ Kiara Alfonseca, Adam Carlson, Hannah Demissie, Devin Dwyer, Ben Gittleson, Will McDuffie, Isabella Murray and Pierre Thomas contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court’s most senior conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas, and its most senior liberal, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, both rose from humble beginnings to join the elite ranks of Yale Law School — and both have publicly credited race-based affirmative action initiatives with helping them get there.
But both justices staked out starkly opposite positions on whether the policy should be allowed to continue, facing off in a pair of blockbuster cases that were decided on Thursday and sharply limited the use of race in private and public college admissions going forward.
The court held, in a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina’s admissions programs violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. However, the majority decision appears to preserve consideration of race in a narrowly tailored way, as in through an individual applicant’s essay or narrative.
While the court’s conservative wing ruled against affirmative action, the three liberal-leaning justices dissented.
Thomas filed a concurring opinion to Roberts’ majority ruling. Both he and Sotomayor read their opinions from the bench — a rare move underlining how strongly each views the issue.
“While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring 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 under the law,” Thomas wrote.
Sotomayor, in dissenting, argued the majority was acting with willful ignorance to the discrimination still snaking through the world.
“Today, this Court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress. It holds that race can no longer be used in a limited way in college admissions to achieve such critical benefits. In so holding, the Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter,” she wrote. “The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society. Because the Court’s opinion is not grounded in law or fact and contravenes the vision of equality embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment, I dissent.”
‘Radically different’
Earlier this year, ABC News took a close look at Sotomayor and Thomas’ views on affirmative action through the years.
“Even as these people have very similar experiences across the board, the way that they react to them is radically different,” Leah Wright Rigueur, an associate professor of history at Johns Hopkins University who specializes in race, politics and civil rights, previously said.
“Both had radicalizing experiences with racism and discrimination, and if it’s true that those radicalizing experiences can push someone to the left, then it’s also true that those radicalized experiences can push someone to the right,” she said.
In many ways, Sotomayor and Thomas’ disagreement mirrors public opinion, said Sarah Isgur, an ABC News legal contributor and former Justice Department attorney. “Their positions are really the epitome of the nuanced argument that we’ve been having around affirmative action for decades in this country,” Isgur said.
Polls show a strong majority of Americans both supporting the promotion of diversity on college campuses while also opposing explicit consideration of the race of student applicants.
“The divide is why states like California and Michigan — which are not red states — have banned affirmative action many years ago now,” Isgur added. “It’s because both sides make compelling points.”
Thomas, the court’s only Black man, grew up poor in still-segregated rural Georgia before getting accepted to Yale Law School in 1971.
“The effort on the part of Yale during my years there was to reach out and open its doors to minorities whom it felt were qualified,” Thomas testified during his 1991 Senate confirmation hearing, “and I took them at their word on that, and I have advocated that very kind of affirmative action.”
Just five years later, Sotomayor, who would become the court’s first and only Latina member, tread a similar path to Yale from the Bronx in New York City.
“[It was] one of the poorest neighborhoods in the United States when I was growing up,” Sotomayor said last year during a discussion at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation. “And yet none of those challenges have stopped me reaching where I have, and I attributed all of it to my education.”
Sotomayor has called the use of race in college admissions an extension of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
“Schools were saying, ‘We’re not diverse. We’re not giving opportunity to people from different backgrounds. That’s important for the society,'” she said in a 2014 appearance at Yale, discussing the origins of affirmative action.
“Without affirmative action, I couldn’t even have participated in the race of a good education because I didn’t even know that there was a race being run,” Sotomayor said.
In a series of decisions over 40 years, before Thursday’s decision, the Supreme Court had reaffirmed that schools can consider race in deciding which students to accept, endorsing the idea that a richly diverse learning environment on campus benefits all students.
“The court determined that the law school’s use of race as only one factor among many others, with no presumption of admission whatsoever, was appropriate under the circumstances,” Sotomayor said during her 2009 Senate confirmation hearing.
But now, the high court’s new conservative majority — led by Thomas — has changed course.
“By and large what they’re going to say is that race itself cannot be a determinative factor in one’s admission because a benefit to one race, quote unquote, is a detriment to another,” Isgur predicted ahead of the ruling.
Thomas has for years been the justice most publicly outspoken against affirmative action.
“Once again, it’s the elites. I mean, they’re telling us what we need,” he lamented of affirmative action programs in an appearance last year at a conservative legal conference.
But Thomas once seemed to support the necessity of race-conscious programs.
“I have initiated affirmative programs, I have supported affirmative action programs. Whether or not I agree with all of them, I think, is a matter of record. But the fact that I don’t agree with all of them does not mean that I am not a supporter of the underlying effort,” he testified during his 1991 Senate confirmation hearings.
As the only Black student in his boarding school seminary class, Thomas was later encouraged to apply to the College of the Holy Cross in 1968 and given a scholarship for racial minorities.
“I don’t think anyone who was a beneficiary of that, of those programs or that action, should apologize for it,” said Vincent Rougeau, president of Holy Cross and the school’s first lay and first Black leader.
“Clarence Thomas was a great student here. I mean, he was highly admired and respected,” Rougeau said, “and I have the deepest respect for his accomplishments and for his work at Holy Cross in terms of fighting for racial justice here.”
Thomas graduated with honors in the top 2% of his class, going on to Yale Law School at the same time it was openly recruiting more minority students.
“There’s a real pressure on us to be in boxes, and I would not be kept in a box during segregation, and I don’t like boxes now,” Thomas told ABC News in a 2007 interview. “I think that’s quite unfortunate. I wasn’t raised that way. I was raised trying to get out of them.”
Looking back on his experience, Thomas now calls affirmative action paternalistic — criticizing it in his dissents as a “faddish theory” that stigmatizes minorities, even if it extends an opportunity.
“One of the things that would happen when I was nominated to the court [was that people would assume] that I couldn’t possibly be as good as the white Yale graduates, because I obviously went to Yale because of the color of my skin,” he said in 2007.
“He’s saying that affirmative action hurt him overall, and that as the only Black member of the court, he’s an important and unique voice on that front,” Isgur said.
Some of Thomas’ critics see hypocrisy.
“That’s an absolutely fair criticism. He’d argue that he’s evolved, that his thinking has changed. And we do know, particularly when it comes to affirmative action, that people’s opinions change all the time,” said Rigueur.
“What I do see, however, somebody like Justice Clarence Thomas … is deeply cynical about the process. Justice Sotomayor takes a very different approach,” she said.
Sotomayor, who has publicly praised Thomas as a colleague and friend, described their difference of opinion as philosophical and foundational.
“It’s between the image of the person who pulls themselves up by the bootstraps and the person who believes that you need a lift to get you up sometimes,” she said at the Aspen Institute in 2017.
The contrast was on full display during oral arguments last year in the pair of cases that pit Harvard and UNC — which consider race in admissions — against a group of Asian American student challengers led by conservative legal activist Edward Blum.
“These two cases are about the restoration of the founding principles of our civil rights movement,” said Blum, founder of the group Students for Fair Admissions, which brought the suits. “Those principles are: A student’s race or ethnicity should not be used to help him or harm him in his chances of gaining admission to a competitive college.”
Before Thursday’s ruling, the schools said alternatives to affirmative action, such as a focus on socioeconomic status, simply aren’t as effective and that if the court struck down the practice, it would mean fewer minorities on campuses nationwide.
In a statement after the Supreme Court decision, UNC Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz said, in part, that the school “remains firmly committed to bringing together talented students with different perspectives and life experiences and continues to make an affordable, high-quality education accessible to the people of North Carolina and beyond.”
Fordham University President Tania Tetlow said in an interview last year: “We would like to match the demographics of this generation as best we can because when we’re not doing that, we know we’re just missing talent,”
In the most recent Supreme Court decision to uphold affirmative action, from 2003, then-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor famously predicted that in 25 years “the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary” in America.
Sotomayor has said she agrees that affirmative action can’t be used forever, but told ABC News in 2014, “You got to find other ways to improve the selection process, but we haven’t found those ways just yet.”
For his part, Thomas insists the program never should have been allowed to begin with. “Show me in the Constitution where you get a right to separate citizens based on race,” he said in a 2020 documentary, “Created Equal.”
“What we’ve become comfortable with is thinking there is some good discrimination and some bad discrimination. Well, who gets to determine that?” Thomas said.
Both justices share a belief in equality and the power of education, but both are now deeply divided on the law and the future of affirmative action in America.
(NEW YORK) — Madonna is “home and feeling better” after her recent hospitalization, a source close to the pop star’s camp told ABC News on Thursday.
The “Material Girl” singer’s manager, Guy Oseary, had initially shared in a statement posted to Instagram on Wednesday that she was recovering after a stay in the intensive care unit with a “serious bacterial infection.”
“Her health is improving, however she is still under medical care,” Oseary said at the time, noting that she was first hospitalized on June 24. “A full recovery is expected.”
Oseary also said Wednesday that Madonna was postponing her upcoming Celebration tour due to the hospital stay. The global tour was set to begin July 15 in Vancouver.
“At this time we will need to pause all commitments, which includes the tour,” Oseary wrote. “We will share more details with you soon as we have them, including a new start date for the tour and for rescheduled shows.”
In January, the 64-year-old singer announced the tour with a video, which featured Jack Black, Judd Apatow, Lil Wayne, Amy Schumer and more.
The video ended with Schumer daring Madonna to go on a world tour and perform all her biggest hits.
The 35-city world tour included stops in Europe with a final show in Amsterdam on Dec. 1.
Following the announcement of her world tour, Madonna took to Instagram to thank her fans for the “love and support.”
“I don’t take any of this for granted,” she said. “I feel like the luckiest girl in the world and I’m so grateful for all your support. And I can’t wait to put this show together and have a moment with each and every one of you on the stage to celebrate the last four decades of my journey. I don’t take any of this for granted.”
This article was originally published on June 28, 2023.
(NEW YORK) — Millions of Americans are on alert for unhealthy air quality as smoke from wildfires in neighboring Canada drifts to the United States.
Wildfires have burned a record of more than 19.5 million acres across Canada so far this year, with no end in sight. There are nearly 500 active wildfires throughout the country and over 250 have been deemed out of control, according to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Center. The smoke has been making its way to the U.S. for more than a month.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Jun 29, 11:36 AM EDT
Pittsburgh air quality reaches ‘very unhealthy’
The Air Quality Index in Pittsburgh climbed to 220 Thursday morning, which falls under the “very unhealthy” category.
Any number over 100 is considered unhealthy for sensitive groups.
Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey is encouraging residents to stay inside on Thursday.
Jun 29, 8:03 AM EDT
Wildfire smoke forecast to dissipate by the weekend
The Canadian wildfire smoke drifting into the United States is expected to largely dissipate by the weekend.
By Friday morning, the smoke is forecast to linger in the eastern Great Lakes from Detroit to Ohio, Pennsylvania, western New York state, down to Virginia and the Carolinas.
New York City is not expected to see much smoke, but skies over the Big Apple could still be a bit hazy due to the nearby plumes.
By Friday evening, the smoke will really begin to diminish in the East with lingering effects from New York to the Carolinas.
Jun 29, 5:20 AM EDT
Videos show Canadian wildfire smoke casting haze over US cities
Videos verified by ABC News show smoke from Canada’s wildfires casting a haze over several U.S. cities on Wednesday.
One video, taken by a driver and posted on Twitter, shows the wildfire smoke hanging over a highway near Lawrenceburg, Indiana, as the state and much of the Midwest were under air quality alerts.
Lawrenceburg is located some 100 miles southeast of Indianapolis, near the state border with Ohio and Kentucky. The city is about 25 miles west of Cincinnati, Ohio.
-ABC News’ Matthew Holroyd
Jun 28, 6:05 PM EDT
Over 100 million Americans under air quality alerts
Air quality alerts remain in effect for more than 100 million Americans across the Midwest and into the Northeast Wednesday evening, as wildfire smoke from neighboring Canada blankets large swaths of the United States.
Air quality alerts remain in effect for more than 100 million Americans across the…Read More
Hard-hit Chicago, Detroit and Minneapolis remain among the top five places in the world with the worst air quality as of Wednesday evening.
The air quality alerts are mainly for people in sensitive groups who have upper respiratory issues.
Near-surface smoke is expected to stretch from Wisconsin to Kentucky and into t…Read More
The near-surface smoke is expected to stretch from Wisconsin to Kentucky and into the Carolinas Wednesday evening. Some of the smoke will likely make its way into the mid-Atlantic overnight. Pittsburgh to Syracuse are forecast to see hazy, smoky skies and poor air quality Wednesday night.
Through Thursday, the smoke is expected to move out of the Midwest and linger farther east but not be as heavy. No significant smoke issues are forecast at this time for major Northeast cities, including New York City.
-ABC News’ Melissa Griffin
Jun 28, 1:10 PM EDT
Air quality health advisory issued in New York
While the poor air quality is mostly hovering over the Midwest, the dangerous smoke is also drifting toward the East Coast.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has expanded Wednesday’s air quality health advisory to include the entire state.
“Air in Western New York, Central New York, and the Eastern Lake Ontario regions is forecast to be ‘Unhealthy,'” Hochul’s office said. “The forecast for the remainder of the state, including New York City and Long Island, is ‘Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups.'”
Jun 28, 12:39 PM EDT
Chicago’s Air Quality Alert in effect until Wednesday night
In Chicago, where the Air Quality Index is in the “very unhealthy” category, an Air Quality Alert is in effect until Wednesday night.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson is urging “particularly sensitive populations, including individuals with heart or lung disease, older adults, pregnant people, and young children” to avoid outdoor activities.
Camps have been moved indoors where possible, the mayor said, and he’s encouraging “Chicagoans without access to properly ventilated and safe indoor conditions” to “please utilize our public libraries, senior centers, Park District facilities, and the Cultural Center or the six community service centers that operate from 9am-5pm.”
Jun 28, 12:30 PM EDT
White House monitoring air quality issues as Biden visits Chicago
President Joe Biden has touched down in Chicago for fundraising and an economic address, and the White House said his schedule has not been modified due to the poor air quality in the city.
“No modifications to today’s schedule that I’m aware of as a result of this,” principal deputy press secretary Olivia Dalton said. “But certainly, we are monitoring the air quality issues across the country closely and federal agencies are ensuring that federal resources are available in affected regions as appropriate.”
The Air Quality Index in hazy Chicago reached 207 on Wednesday morning. Any number over 100 is considered unhealthy for sensitive groups.
-ABC News’ Molly Nagle
Jun 28, 8:59 AM EDT
Where the smoke is concentrating and why
The latest round of unhealthy air quality due to smoke from wildfires in Canada has pushed into the United States, and it’s ability to concentrate over areas from Wisconsin to Kentucky is aided by recent storms that spawned tornadoes, large hail and [damaging winds]).
Winds at the mid-levels of the atmosphere are causing the Canadian wildfire smoke to concentrate over a specific area of the midwestern and eastern U.S.
Meanwhile, a heat dome that’s been causing stagnant deadly heat in the Deep South for weeks is keeping the smoke largely out of the region.
The next round of widespread showers and thunderstorms for this area of the eastern Midwest and the East is forecast to arrive on Friday and continue through the weekend, which will clear the smoke.
But as long as the wildfires continue to rage in Canada, these events of dense smoke plumes will likely continue to disperse into the U.S. Canada’s wildfire activity typically peaks from June to August.
Jun 28, 7:59 AM EDT
What to know about the Air Quality Index from wildfire smoke and how it affects human health
Heavy blankets of smoke billowing over the United States from wildfires burning in neighboring Canada are threatening the health of millions of people — even non-vulnerable populations with no preexisting conditions. But what about the smoke makes it so hazardous for humans to be around?
Wildfire smoke contains fine particulate matter, known as PM2.5, which are microscopic solid or liquid droplets — often 30 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair — that can be inhaled and cause serious health problems, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Most particles form in the atmosphere as a result of complex reactions of chemicals, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides — pollutants emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles. But wildfires likely contain PM2.5 that is up to 10 times more harmful than the same type of air pollution coming from combustion activity, according to a 2021 study conducted in California.
PM2.5 is considered unhealthy for “Code Orange” and sensitive groups once the Air Quality Index surpasses 100, according to AirNow, a website that publishes air quality data. Once the AQI surpasses 150, it is considered “Code Red,” unhealthy for some members of the general public who may experience health effects, with sensitive groups experiencing more severe effects.
The AQI is at “Code Purple” once it surpasses 200, considered “very unhealthy” with increased health risk for all populations. “Code Maroon” is labeled as “hazardous” and a health warning for emergency conditions once the AQI reaches 300 and higher.
At Code Maroon, “everyone is more likely to be affected,” according to AirNow.
A “good” AQI is measured at 50 and below, and a “moderate” air quality index ranks between 51 and 100.
Jun 28, 7:45 AM EDT
Chicago air quality hits ‘very unhealthy’ category
As Canadian wildfire smoke infiltrates the midwestern United States, the air in Chicago has deteriorated to the Air Quality Index’s> “very unhealthy” category.
The AQI in hazy Chicago reached 250 on Tuesday afternoon. Any number over 100 is considered unhealthy for sensitive groups.
“We recommend children, teens, seniors, people with heart or lung disease, and individuals who are pregnant avoid strenuous activities and limit their time outdoors,” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson warned in a statement. “For additional precautions, all Chicagoans may also consider wearing masks, limiting their outdoor exposure, moving activities indoors, running air purifiers, and closing windows.”
The smoke is forecast to clear on Friday when showers and thunderstorms hit the region.
Earlier this month, the AQI in the northeastern U.S. reached near maximum with levels in the high 400s.
Jun 28, 7:03 AM EDT
20 US states under air quality alerts
As of Wednesday morning, 20 U.S. states are under air quality alerts from Minnesota down to Georgia and as far north as western New York.
Wildfire smoke from neighbouring Canada is currently blanketing large swaths of the United States, from Iowa to western Pennsylvania to North Carolina and most everywhere in between. Only Chicago is getting a small reprieve on Wednesday morning due to a lake breeze, which isn’t expected to last for long.
Later on Wednesday, the smoke is expected to cover areas from Minnesota to Washington, D.C. and down to the Carolinas.
By early Thursday morning, the smoke will be seen in Minneapolis, Chicago, Indianapolis, Atlanta and Pittsburgh. But by the afternoon, it will linger from Detroit to Atlanta and east to Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia.
New York City could be impacted as well, but most of the smoke from the Canadian wildfires is expected to stay in western New York state, Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey.
