Facts of the Case
In 1983, the City Council of Richmond, Virginia adopted regulations that required companies awarded city construction contracts to subcontract 30 percent of their business to minority business enterprises. The J.A. Croson Company, which lost its contract because of the 30 percent set-aside, brought suit against the city.
Questions
Did the Richmond law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusions
-
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that "generalized assertions" of past racial discrimination could not justify "rigid" racial quotas for the awarding of public contracts. Justice O'Connor's opinion noted that the 30 percent quota could not be tied to "any injury suffered by anyone," and was an impermissible employment of a suspect classification. O'Connor further held that allowing claims of past discrimination to serve as the basis for racial quotas would actually subvert constitutional values: "The dream of a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based on inherently unmeasurable claims of past wrongs."
Racial Preferences in Economic Benefits: From Widely Accepted to Legally Indefensible
Federalist Society Review, Volume 25
As the United States began to emerge from its long history of legal segregation and...
Public Contracting Litigation After Croson: Data, Disparities, & Discrimination
Federalist Society Review, Volume 22
What causes racial disparities, and what, if anything, can and should be done to remedy...
Anecdotes as Evidence: Proving Public Contracting Discrimination in a Strict Scrutiny World
Engage Volume 16, Issue 2
Note from the Editor: This article is about the use of anecdotal evidence to justify...
