US Supreme Court's two Black justices clash over affirmative action ruling

The US Supreme Court's two Black justices clashed in dueling opinions on the court's decision to curtail affirmative action programs at universities.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's longest-serving Black justice, said he agreed with the majority's decision because he believes that the Constitution prohibits the government from considering race in any way in its decision-making. 

He accused Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court's newest Black justice, of having a "race-infused world view" that "falls flat at each step." 

Jackson, in her dissenting opinion, said that Thomas's view of the Constitution is "ahistorical" and "ignores the current reality of race in America." 

She said that affirmative action programs are necessary to address the ongoing legacy of racism and discrimination in the United States. 

The court's decision is a major setback for affirmative action programs, which have been used by colleges and universities for decades to boost the number of Black and Hispanic students on their campuses. The decision is likely to have a significant impact on college admissions at elite schools, where Black and Hispanic students are already underrepresented.

The clash between Thomas and Jackson is the latest in a long-running debate over affirmative action in the United States. The issue has been a source of controversy for decades, and the court's decision is unlikely to put the matter to rest.

Here are some additional details about the two justices' opinions: Thomas's opinion  – Thomas argued that the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, prohibits the government from considering race in any way. – He said that affirmative action programs are "racially discriminatory" and "violate the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection." – He accused Jackson of having a "race-infused world view" that "falls flat at each step."

Jackson's opinion – Jackson argued that the Constitution does not prohibit the government from considering race in a limited way to achieve a "compelling interest." – She said that affirmative action programs are necessary to address the ongoing legacy of racism and discrimination in the United States. – She said that Thomas's view of the Constitution is "ahistorical" and "ignores the current reality of race in America."

The court's decision is likely to be challenged in lower courts, and it is possible that the Supreme Court will revisit the issue in the future. 

Thank you