Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Adarand Constructors v. Peña | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||||
| Argued January 17, 1995 Decided June 12, 1995 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||||
| All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local government actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under a standard of "strict scrutiny," the highest level of Supreme Court review (such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests). | ||||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||||
| Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer |
||||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||||
| Majority by: O'Connor Joined by: Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas Concurrence by: Scalia Concurrence by: Thomas Dissent by: Stevens Joined by: Ginsburg Dissent by: Souter Joined by: Ginsburg, Breyer Dissent by: Ginsburg Joined by: Breyer |
||||||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||||||
| U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV | ||||||||||||
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, , is a United States Supreme Court case which held that all racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local government actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under a standard of "strict scrutiny," the highest level of Supreme Court review (such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests). Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion of the Court, which effectively overturned Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, , in which the Court had created a two tiered system for analyzing racial classifications.
Contents |
[edit] Background
Many contracts that are let by agencies of the US federal government contain financial incentives for the prime contractor to employ subcontractors that are owned or controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.” The US Small Business Administration certifies certain businesses as disadvantaged. This usually means that the business is owned by racial or ethnic minority groups or by women. In this particular case the contract stated that “...the contractor shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities...”
[edit] The facts
In 1989 the US Department of Transportation (DOT) awarded a highway construction contract in Colorado to Mountain Gravel and Construction Company. Mountain Gravel solicited bids for a subcontract for guardrails along the highway. The lowest bid was submitted by Adarand Constructors, with a higher bid being submitted by Gonzales Construction. However, Gonzales Construction had been certified by the Small Business Administration as a disadvantaged business, and thus Mountain Gravel awarded the subcontract to Gonzales, due to financial incentives in the Mountain Gravel’s contract for employing disadvantaged businesses. Adarand filed suit in federal court against DOT, arguing that the subcontracting incentive clause, or bonus, that caused Adarand to lose a subcontract was unconstitutional. The federal district court and circuit court ruled in favor of DOT and against Adarand, which then appealed to the US Supreme Court. The case was docketed as Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Federico Peña, Secretary of Transportation, et al., because Federico Peña was the US Secretary of Transportation at that time.
[edit] The question to be decided
Is the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a discriminatory practice that violates the equal protection principle embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
[edit] Aftermath
In September 2005, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report finding that, ten years after the Adarand decision, federal agencies still largely fail to comply with the rule in Adarand. Specifically, the Commission found that the Departments of Defense, Transportation, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and State, and the Small Business Administration, do not seriously consider race-neutral alternatives before implementing race-conscious federal procurement programs. The Commission found that such consideration is required by the strict scrutiny standard under Adarand and other Supreme Court decisions. Commissioner Michael Yaki dissented from the Commission's report, arguing that the Commission was taking a "radical step backwards" from the "race-progressive policies" of the past.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (full text with links to cited material)
- U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal Procurement After Adarand (September 2005)
|
||||||||||||||
