Adarand v. Pena

Adarand v. Pena Summary of Case: Federal and State laws allow race-based remedial action at the federal, state and local government levels. The laws are designed to benefit "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." At the same time, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. constitution provide equal protection of the laws for all citizens. In this case, a prime highway contract was awarded in 1989 to Mountain Gravel by the Central Federal Lands Highway Division, who then solicited bids for the guardrail portion of the highway project.

A subcontracting compensation clause program awards incentive payment to prime contractors who subcontract with DBEs. In consideration of the additional compensation, Mountain Gravel hired Gonzales, a certified DBE, despite the fact that Adarand submitted the lowest bid. Adarand appealed against the government in the District Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of the government. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the District Court. Adarand petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

("Adarand Constructors v Pena"; Gentile) What Constitutional Issue is raised in the Adarand litigation? The Constitutional issue is whether the subcontracting compensation clause that leads to awards of contracts to disadvantaged businesses (DBEs) is a violation of equal protection guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. After the Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Adarand v.

Pena what requirements an affirmative action program have to be met to be constitutional? After the Supreme Court decision in Adarand v Pena an affirmative action program would have to pass a "strict" and "detailed" judicial inquiry of all race based actions. The Supreme Court holding overruled to that extent the Court's own previous ruling in Metro Broadcasting which adopted "intermediate scrutiny" as the standard of review for "benign" federal racial classifications.

Was the decision of the court majority correct? Why or why not? In my opinion the court's majority opinion was not correct. The contentious nature of the issue is reflected in the Supreme Court's own split (5-4) majority decision. While giving its decision the Court relied more on 'form' than 'substance' of the issue. Applying the same standard of scrutiny to 'benign' forms of racial discrimination and 'malicious' racial discrimination is morally wrong.

The legislature had introduced such affirmative action programs to compensate for the disadvantages suffered by the minorities and they have the prerogative to discontinue such laws when they have served their purpose. That purpose has so far not been served since the minorities in the American society are still disadvantaged. (Gentile) Following Adarand v. Pena, the district court held that the affirmative action program in federal highway contracts was unconstitutional.

Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not? In view of the clear-cut decision of the Supreme Court for applying a "strict" standard to such cases and its over-ruling of previous Court ruling that called for application of 'intermediate' scrutiny in such cases, the decision of the district court is legally correct. My opinion about the morality of such a decision is different as expressed in the.