Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
The city of Richmond (D) had an ordinance requiring that minority run subcontractors receive 30% of the construction contracts. J.A. Croson Co. (P) claimed that minority subcontractors had not been receiving their fair share of contracts, since the city contained 50% minorities, and minority subcontractors only received .67% of the city contracts. There was no evidence of discriminatory practices in the Richmond construction industry. P challenged the ordinance's constitutionality. The District Court upheld the Plan. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Both courts applied Fullilove v. Klutznick and Bakke. The majority found that national findings of discrimination in the construction industry, when considered in conjunction with the statistical study concerning the awarding of prime contracts in Richmond, rendered the city council's conclusion that low minority participation in city contracts was due to past discrimination 'reasonable.' The panel held that to remedy the effects of past discrimination, 'a set-aside program for a period of five years obviously must require more than a 0.67% set-aside to encourage minorities to enter the contracting industry and to allow existing minority contractors to grow.' The Supreme Court granted review and vacated the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of its intervening decision in Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals struck down the Richmond set-aside program as violating both prongs of strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals held that the 30% set-aside was not narrowly tailored to accomplish a remedial purpose. The figure was 'chosen arbitrarily,' and was not tied to the number of minority subcontractors in Richmond or to any other relevant number.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co