The only two Black members of the Supreme Court — Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson — openly traded barbs in their opinions Thursday as the high court dealt what may be a death blow to the use of race in college admissions.

That they would disagree on the subject is hardly surprising. Thomas, the court’s longest serving justice and perhaps its most conservative member, rose to public prominence more than three decades ago as a strident critic of affirmative action. Jackson, the court’s newest justice, has long been a proponent of diversity efforts, and in one of the first cases she heard last fall, she made headlines for forcefully defending the idea that the Constitution allows — and even encourages — race-conscious policies to rectify the nation’s legacy of racial discrimination.

However, the acrimony in the back-and-forth between the pair is unusual for the Supreme Court. Much of their exchange on race in American society seemed particularly prickly and personal.

Thomas, who headed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before being nominated to a federal appeals court and then the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush, devoted seven pages of his 58-page concurring opinion to critiquing Jackson’s dissent. He rebutted Jackson’s arguments in favor of race-conscious admissions and repudiated what he described as her grim outlook on racial equality in America.

“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,” wrote Thomas, 75, who in 1991 became the second Black person (after Thurgood Marshall) to be appointed to the high court. “The panacea, she counsels, is to unquestioningly accede to the view of elite experts and reallocate society’s riches by racial means as necessary to ‘level the playing field,’ all as judged by racial metrics. I strongly disagree.”

Jackson’s 28-page dissent defended the use of race-conscious programs to ameliorate the pervasive, present-day effects of America’s history of state-sponsored racism.

“Gulf-sized race-based gaps exist with respect to the health, wealth, and well-being of American citizens,” her dissent began. Allowing colleges to consider applicants’ race has “universal benefits” because it helps to close those gaps and thereby promotes equality, she wrote.

And insisting that colleges and universities avoid using race in the admissions process would not erase those profound disparities, Jackson declared.

“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life,” she wrote.

Thomas — who mentioned his junior colleague by name 18 times in his opinion — assailed not only Jackson’s views on the subject but also her motivations.

“Justice Jackson uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well-being to label all blacks as victims. Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me,” Thomas wrote. “I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds.”

“Justice Jackson’s race-infused world view falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments,” he added. “What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything — good or bad — that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.”

Thomas also accused Jackson of ignoring the oppression of other groups, including Asian Americans and “white communities that have faced historic barriers.”

Thomas wrote only for himself: No other justice joined his concurring opinion.

No other justice joined Thomas’ concurring opinion.