The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, January 17, 1995
Decision: Monday, June 12, 1995
Issues: Civil Rights, Affirmative Action
Categories: affirmative action, discrimination, fifth amendment, race, race discrimination
Tags: Rehnquist: Invidious Discrimination, Rehnquist on iTunes U

Advocates

Drew S. Days, III (Argued the cause for the respondents)
William Perry Pendley (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Adarand, a contractor specializing in highway guardrail work, submitted the lowest bid as a subcontractor for part of a project funded by the United States Department of Transportation. Under the terms of the federal contract, the prime contractor would receive additional compensation if it hired small businesses controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." [The clause declared that "the contractor shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities...." Federal law requires such a subcontracting clause in most federal agency contracts]. Another subcontractor, Gonzales Construction Company, was awarded the work. It was certified as a minority business; Adarand was not. The prime contractor would have accepted Adarand's bid had it not been for the additional payment for hiring Gonzales.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Yes. Overruling Metro Broadcasting (497 US 547), the Court held that all racial classifications, whether imposed by federal, state, or local authorities, must pass strict scrutiny review. In other words, they "must serve a compelling government interest, and must be narrowly tailored to further that interest." The Court added that compensation programs which are truly based on disadvantage, rather than race, would be evaluated under lower equal protection standards. However, since race is not a sufficient condition for a presumption of disadvantage and the award of favored treatment, all race-based classifications must be judged under the strict scrutiny standard. Moreover, even proof of past injury does not in itself establish the suffering of present or future injury. The Court remanded for a determination of whether the Transportation Department's program satisfied strict scrutiny.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 5 votes for Adarand Constructors, 4 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Equal Protection
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Wrote the majority opinion
O'Connor
Wrote a regular concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote a dissent
Souter
Wrote a regular concurrence
Thomas
Wrote a dissent, joined Souter's dissent, joined Stevens' dissent
Ginsburg
Voted with the minority, joined Souter's dissent, joined Ginsburg's dissent
Breyer
Full Opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1841/>
(last visited ).