Adarand Constructors v. Peña
Adarand Constructors v. Peña is a significant Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of race-based preferences in federal contracting. The case arose when Adarand Constructors, a construction company, sued the federal government after losing a contract to a Hispanic-owned firm, despite being the lowest bidder. Adarand argued that the government's policy of awarding bonuses to contractors who hire minority-owned businesses violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court established that all racial classifications must be subjected to "strict scrutiny," a rigorous standard requiring that such classifications be narrowly tailored to serve compelling government interests. This decision marked a shift from previous rulings which had allowed for more lenient scrutiny in federal programs. Although the ruling did not abolish affirmative action, it heightened the scrutiny of federal programs that include race-based preferences and opened the door for challenges to similar policies. The case reflects ongoing debates about race, equality, and the role of affirmative action in addressing historical injustices in the United States.
Adarand Constructors v. Peña
Date: June 12, 1995
Citation: 515 U.S. 200
Issue: Affirmative action
Significance: The Supreme Court required lower courts to use the standards of “strict scrutiny” when examining any preferences based on race.
The Federal Highway Division provided premiums to general contractors for awarding contracts to firms owned by members of racial minorities recognized as having experienced social and economic disadvantages. Although the Adarand Constructors company was the lowest bidder for one construction project, the award was made to a Hispanic-owned company. Adarand sued, claiming that this race-based preference violated the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection. In Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. (1989), the Supreme Court had required “strict scrutiny” on racial classifications at the state and local levels, but it had applied “intermediate scrutiny” for federal programs in Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission (1990). The court of appeals used the more lenient standard and upheld the government’s policy.
However, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision. Speaking for a 5-4 majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor held that all racial classifications must be analyzed under the strict scrutiny standard, which required such classifications to be “narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental objectives.” Contradicting what many authorities had written, O’Connor denied that strict scrutiny would always be “fatal in fact.” Although the Adarand decision did not end all affirmative action, it did increase the probability that federal programs involving preferences would be challenged and invalidated.