Fullilove v. Klutznick
Fullilove v. Klutznick was a significant Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality of race-conscious classifications in federal legislation, specifically within the context of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977. This act was the first federal statute to incorporate explicit affirmative action measures since the post-Civil War era, aimed at supporting minority contractors. The case arose when nonminority contractors claimed that the act violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment due to its racially specific provisions.
The Supreme Court's decision was split, with six justices upholding the act through two separate plurality opinions. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger emphasized Congress's authority to implement such measures to rectify historical discrimination. In contrast, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. argued for a different standard of scrutiny, asserting that whites did not experience the same historical disadvantages. The ruling ultimately paved the way for more affirmative action programs across various levels of government but also set the stage for stricter scrutiny in future cases, notably in Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. and Adarand Constructors v. Peña. This case remains a pivotal reference point in discussions about affirmative action and its legal implications in the United States.
Fullilove v. Klutznick
Date: July 2, 1980
Citation: 448 U.S. 448
Issue: Affirmative action
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld a federal public works program that required a 10 percent set-aside of federal funds for minority-controlled businesses.
The Public Works Employment Act of 1977 was the first federal statute to include an explicitly race-conscious classification since the Freedman’s Bureau Act of 1877. Nonminority contractors challenged the act as a violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.
The six justices voting to uphold the statute were divided into two plurality opinions, each supported by three justices. In one opinion, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger deferred to the special powers of Congress under the spending and commerce clauses as well as the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Applying the strict scrutiny test, moreover, Burger concluded that the set-asides were an appropriate means for the Congress to pursue its compelling interest “in redressing the discrimination that affects minority contractors.” In the other plurality opinion, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., insisted that whites as a class did not suffer from historical discrimination, and therefore, he argued that all affirmative action programs should be judged according to the standard of intermediate scrutiny.
The Fullilove decision encouraged the passage of numerous set-aside programs at the federal, state, and local levels. The Court, however, put stringent limits on such programs in Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. (1989) and Adarand Constructors v. Peña (1995), holding that all racial classifications must be reviewed according to the strict scrutiny test.