However, Gonzales Construction had been certified by the Small Business Administration as a disadvantaged business and so Mountain Gravel awarded the subcontract to Gonzales because of financial incentives in the Mountain Gravel's contract for employing disadvantaged businesses. The lowest bid was submitted by Adarand Constructors, with a higher bid being submitted by Gonzales Construction. Mountain Gravel solicited bids for a subcontract for guardrails along the highway. In 1989, the US Department of Transportation (DOT) awarded a highway construction contract in Colorado to Mountain Gravel and Construction Company. "the contractor shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities." In this particular case the contract stated that That usually meant that the business was owned by racial or ethnic minority groups or by women. Adarand held the federal government to the same standards as the state and local governments through a process of "reverse incorporation," in which the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause was held to bind the federal government to the same standards as state and local governments are bound under the 14th Amendment.Īt the time this case was litigated, many contracts led by agencies of the United States federal government contained financial incentives for the prime contractor to employ subcontractors that were owned or controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." The US Small Business Administration would certify certain businesses as disadvantaged. FCC, in which the Court had created a two tiered system for analyzing racial classifications. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion of the Court, which effectively overturned Metro Broadcasting, Inc. ![]() 200 (1995), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that racial classifications, imposed by the federal government, must be analyzed under a standard of " strict scrutiny," the most stringent level of review which requires that racial classifications be narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests. Klutznick (1980) (in part) & Metro Broadcasting, Inc. This case overturned a previous ruling or rulingsįullilove v. O'Connor, joined by Kennedy Rehnquist, Thomas (all but Part III–C) Scalia (as consistent with his concurrence) ![]() 103 (2001).Īll racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local government actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under a standard of " strict scrutiny," the highest level of Supreme Court review (such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests).Ĭhief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Service 4381 95 Daily Journal DAR 7503 40 Cont. Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.115 S. Under the rational basis standard, the court determines whether there is any rational justification for the classifications created by a challenged rule, which must further a "legitimate governmental interest". Strict scrutiny is at the opposite end of the spectrum for the rational basis test used. If the analysis discusses a compelling interest that is narrowly tailored to achieve its goals, it is a strict scrutiny analysis. The language of the court's opinion indicates the level of scrutiny applied. Strict scrutiny is applied in cases where there is a real and appreciable impact on, or a significant interference with the exercise of a fundamental right. There must not be any less restrictive means that would accomplish the government?s objective just as well. ![]() Also, the means to achieve the purpose, objective, or interest is reviewed to determine if it is "narrowly tailored" to the accomplishment of the governmental purpose, objective, or interest. The purpose, objective, or interest being pursued by the government must be "compelling". ![]() The strict scrutiny standard is the most thorough analysis. It is a level of scrutiny applied to classifications that are alleged to violate constitutional rights to equal protection of the laws. They may determine whether an act by the President, Congress, a national, state, or local administrative official, a state legislature, a local governing board, or a lower court is valid. Strict scrutiny is one level of analysis used by the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of other governmental bodies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |