Facts of the Case
In 1977, Congress enacted legislation requiring that at least 10 percent of federal funds granted for local public works programs had to be used to obtain services or supplies from businesses owned by minority group members. H. Earl Fullilove and other contractors filed suit, claiming they had been economically harmed by the enforcement of the statute. The defendant was Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary of Commerce.
Questions
Did the provision of the statute for minority business enterprises violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusions
-
No. The Court held that the minority set-aside program was a legitimate exercise of congressional power. The Court found that Congress could pursue the objectives of the minority business enterprise program under the Spending Power. The plurality opinion noted that Congress could have regulated the practices of contractors on federally funded projects under the Commerce Clause as well. The Court further held that in the remedial context, Congress did not have to act "in a wholly 'color-blind' fashion."
The Twin Commands: Streamlining Equality Litigation Based on Students for Fair Admissions
Federalist Society Review, Volume 25
Each year, government contracting programs dole out tens of billions of dollars to businesses that...
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...
The Parade of Horribles Lives: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary
Engage Volume 14, Issue 3 October 2013
Note from the Editor: This article is about the U.S. Supreme Court case Schuette v....
Pruning the Overgrowth of Government Contracting Preferences
Engage Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2011
The policy of creating preferences for businesses owned at least fifty-one percent by members of...
