Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña


Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Adarand Constructors v. Peña
ArgueDate=January 17
ArgueYear=1995
DecideDate=June 12
DecideYear=1995
FullName=Adarand Constructors, Incorporated, Petitioner v. Federico Peña, Secretary of Transportation, et al.
USVol=515
USPage=200
Citation=115 S. Ct. 2097; 132 L. Ed. 2d 158; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 4037; 63 U.S.L.W. 4523; 67 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1828; 66 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P43,556; 78 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 357; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4381; 95 Daily Journal DAR 7503; 40 Cont. Cas. Fed. (CCH) P76,756
Prior=On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Subsequent=
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).
SCOTUS=1994-2005
Majority=O'Connor
JoinMajority=Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Concurrence=Scalia
Concurrence2=Thomas
Dissent=Stevens
JoinDissent=Ginsburg
Dissent2=Souter
JoinDissent2=Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent3=Ginsburg
JoinDissent3=Breyer
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV

"Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña", ussc|515|200|1995, 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", ussc|497|547|1990, in which the Court had created a two tiered system for analyzing racial classifications.

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...”

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. Mountain States Legal Foundation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_States_Legal_Foundation] represented Adarand Constructors.

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?

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.

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 515

External links

*caselaw source
case="Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña", 515 U.S. 200 (1995)
enfacto=http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./515/200/
other_source1=LII
other_url1=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?515+200

* [http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/080505_fedprocadarand.pdf U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal Procurement After Adarand (September 2005)]


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.


Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”

We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.