Adarand Litigation: Constitutional Challenge And Racial Discrimination

The 1995 Adarand litigation raised the constitutional issue of whether affirmative action programs with racial or ethnic preferences violate the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Adarand Constructors, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the Department of Transportation, claiming that the use of race-based presumptions in subcontractor compensation clauses was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided that strict scrutiny applies to federal cases, and that race-based preferences would be unconstitutional unless the government could provide a compelling reason. This set a new standard for affirmative action programs, requiring them to pass the compelling reason test to be deemed constitutional.

Explore related products

GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION: Civil Rights Litigation, Affirmative Action, & Real Lawsuits Against the Government (How to Prepare, File a Lawsuit, and Win Against Your Employer in California)

$9.95

When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America

$17.66 $17.05

Controversies in Affirmative Action [3 volumes]

$35.99 $204

Reflections Of An Affirmative Action Baby

$17.13 $23

A Litigator's Guide to Drafting and Answering a Complaint in Nevada (The Litigator's Guide Series)

$39.99 $59.99

The The Ironies of Affirmative Action: Politics, Culture, and Justice in America (Morality and Society)

$19.99 $29.99

Does affirmative action violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause?

The Adarand case, Adarand Constructors v. Peña, addressed the question of whether affirmative action violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The case involved a challenge to a federal program that provided financial incentives to contractors who hired minority-owned subcontractors. Adarand Constructors, the lowest bidder for a guardrail contract, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Transportation, arguing that it should have been awarded the contract. The Department of Transportation countered that its affirmative action program aimed to award more public works projects to companies owned by disadvantaged persons, including women and racial minorities.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case set a precedent for strict scrutiny in federal cases involving racial groups. Writing for the court, Justice O'Connor stated that racial groups could only be treated differently by the government for the "most compelling reasons". This ruling raised the standard for justifying race-based preferences, requiring the government to clearly prove their necessity.

The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause guarantees that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to prohibit discrimination against certain groups, including racial minorities, and to require that classifications based on race must be closely scrutinized.

There are differing views on whether affirmative action violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Some argue that affirmative action unfairly discriminates based on race or sex, contradicting the equal protection clause. On the other hand, others defend affirmative action as a necessary remedy for the historical and systemic exclusion and discrimination faced by racial minorities and women. They contend that affirmative action policies serve a compelling governmental interest in rectifying past injustices.

The Supreme Court has issued several rulings related to affirmative action and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. In Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982), the Court held that excluding men from undergraduate admissions violated the 14th Amendment. The Court has also addressed affirmative action in the context of education, with rulings such as Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke recognizing the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies that do not utilize explicit quotas. However, more recent decisions, such as Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al. (2023), have concluded that the consideration of race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Does the Adarand litigation violate the Fifth Amendment's due process clause?

The Adarand litigation revolves around the question of whether affirmative action violates the 14th Amendment's requirement of equal protection. Adarand Constructors filed a lawsuit against the Department of Transportation, claiming that as the lowest bidder, they should have been awarded the guardrail contract. The Department of Transportation countered that the contract was awarded to further the goals of its affirmative action program, which aimed to award more public works projects to companies owned by disadvantaged persons, defined as women and racial minorities.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995) centred on the claim that the Federal Government's practice of giving general contractors on government projects financial incentives to hire subcontractors controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Adarand Constructors, Inc. submitted the low bid on the subcontract but was not a certified business. They argued that the race-based presumptions used in subcontractor compensation clauses violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause mandates that the government must act in accordance with legal rules and not contrary to them. It protects against arbitrary and unjust government actions and promotes fairness within the judicial system. It requires that individuals receive adequate notice of legal actions against them and have a fair and impartial hearing. The Due Process Clause also protects fundamental rights from government interference, including the right to privacy, the right to marry, and other basic liberties.

The Supreme Court, in this case, decided that strict scrutiny applies to federal cases. Justice O'Connor stated that whenever racial groups are treated differently by any level of government, it may only be done "for the most compelling reasons". This set a new test for all affirmative action programs with racial or ethnic preferences, although the Supreme Court has not defined what a "compelling reason" might be.

In conclusion, the Adarand litigation does raise questions about the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, specifically concerning equal protection and the use of race-based presumptions in government decision-making. However, the Supreme Court's decision in this case suggests that race-based preferences would be unconstitutional unless the government could provide a compelling reason for them, thus upholding the principles of the Due Process Clause.

Does the Department of Transportation's affirmative action program discriminate by race or sex?

The Adarand litigation raised the question of whether the Department of Transportation's (DOT) affirmative action program discriminates by race or sex. Adarand Constructors, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the DOT, claiming that as the lowest bidder, they should have been awarded a guardrail contract. However, the DOT awarded the contract to Gonzales Construction Company, a certified small business controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals". Adarand, which was not a certified business, argued that the DOT's affirmative action program unfairly discriminated based on race and sex by giving preference to disadvantaged persons, defined as women and racial minorities.

The case centred on the interpretation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Adarand claimed that the DOT's race-based presumptions violated their right to equal protection. The District Court and the Court of Appeals initially ruled in favour of the DOT, assessing the constitutionality of the federal race-based action under an intermediate scrutiny standard. However, the Supreme Court later decided that strict scrutiny applies to federal cases, raising the threshold for justifying race-based preferences.

The Supreme Court's decision in Adarand v. Peña set a precedent for evaluating affirmative action programs. The Court held that whenever racial groups are treated differently by the government, it must be for "the most compelling reasons". This standard requires the government to clearly prove the need for race-based preferences, and it shifts the focus to the reasons for such preferences rather than solely on the presence of racial discrimination.

While the Supreme Court's decision provided guidance, it did not define what constitutes a "compelling reason". Justices have differing opinions on this matter, with some arguing that the government could never have a compelling reason to make race preferences, while others have left the door open for affirmative action programs with racial preferences.

Following the Adarand case, the DOT made substantial revisions to its small business program, eliminating the use of Subcontractor Compensation Clauses (SCCs) and financial incentives that provided additional compensation for hiring disadvantaged subcontractors. The DOT's current rules for helping disadvantaged businesses obtain highway construction contracts have been reviewed by courts, with some finding them to satisfy constitutional standards.

Explore related products

Affirmative Action Before Constitutional Law, 1964-1997 Vol.1-3(Cont.in Constitutional Law)

$19.95

Affirmative Action: Regents of the University of California V. Bakke (Courting History)

$37.36

Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

$17.52 $22.95

Regents of the University of California V. Bakke (Great Supreme Court Decisions)

$35

BAKKE & THE POLITICS OF EQUALITY - Friends and Foes in the Classroom of Litigation

$30 $18.95

A Conflict of Principles: The Battle Over Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan

$53.48 $54.99

Does the Department of Transportation's affirmative action program unfairly favour racial minorities and women?

The case of Adarand Constructors v. Peña (1995) raised the question of whether the Department of Transportation's (DOT) affirmative action program unfairly favoured racial minorities and women. Adarand Constructors, a Colorado-based highway construction company, filed a lawsuit against the DOT, claiming that they had lost a contract due to their race. The DOT's program aimed to award more public works projects to companies owned by disadvantaged persons, defined as women and racial minorities.

Adarand Constructors argued that the DOT's affirmative action program violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. They claimed that the government's use of race-based presumptions in identifying "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" was unconstitutional and amounted to racial discrimination. The company further asserted that as the lowest bidder, it should have been awarded the guardrail contract, regardless of whether it was a certified business or not.

On the other hand, supporters of the DOT's program argued that affirmative action is necessary to remedy the historical discrimination and exclusion faced by racial minorities and women. They contended that without affirmative action, racial minorities and women would continue to be underrepresented in certain industries and fields.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, decided that strict scrutiny applies to federal cases involving racial classifications by the government. This means that race-based preferences would be unconstitutional unless the government could provide a compelling reason for their use. While the Court did not define what constitutes a "compelling reason", Justice O'Connor stated that racial groups should only be treated differently by the government for the most compelling reasons.

Following the Adarand case, the DOT made substantial revisions to its small business program, eliminating the use of Subcontractor Compensation Clauses (SCCs) and financial incentives for hiring disadvantaged businesses. The DOT's current rules for helping disadvantaged businesses obtain highway construction contracts have been deemed constitutional by the court of appeals.

Does Adarand's claim for forward-looking relief constitute an invasion of a legally protected interest?

In the case of Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, the petitioner, Adarand Constructors, Inc., filed a lawsuit against the Department of Transportation, claiming that as the lowest bidder, it should have been awarded the guardrail contract. The Department of Transportation countered that it was promoting the objectives of its affirmative action program, which aimed to award more public works projects to disadvantaged individuals, including women and racial minorities. This case raises the constitutional question of whether affirmative action violates the 14th Amendment's mandate of equal protection.

Adarand's claim for forward-looking relief raises the issue of whether the use of race-based criteria in subcontractor compensation clauses violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Adarand Constructors, Inc. argued that the race-based presumptions used in these clauses resulted in a violation of their right to equal protection.

The District Court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, assessing the constitutionality of the federal race-based action through a lenient standard of intermediate scrutiny. However, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling on June 12, 1995, decided that strict scrutiny should be applied in federal cases involving racial classifications. This ruling set a precedent that race-based preferences would be unconstitutional unless the government could provide a compelling reason for their use.

In the context of this case, the discussion of "forward-looking relief" relates to Adarand's request for the court to prohibit the use of race-based criteria in subcontractor compensation clauses in the future. This request for injunctive relief aims to prevent future instances of alleged discrimination and ensure that subcontracts are awarded based on non-discriminatory criteria.

Adarand's claim for forward-looking relief does not constitute a typical tort-based invasion of a legally protected interest. Instead, it is rooted in the constitutional right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. The company asserted that the government's use of race-based criteria in subcontracting decisions violated this right, causing harm to Adarand Constructors, Inc. as a legal entity. The company sought redress for this alleged violation through the judicial system, ultimately bringing the case before the Supreme Court.

Frequently asked questions