Fullilove v. Klutznick case brief

Fullilove v. Klutznick
448 U.S. 448 (1980)
FACTS
-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.

ISSUE
Did the provision of the statute for minority business enterprises violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

HOLDING
-No.
-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."

Notes:

No majority opinion. Court upheld against a facial challenge a 1977 federal statute providing federal funds to state and local government building projects that required that absent an administrative waiver, at least 10% of the money had to be spent procuring goods or services from minority business enterprises. Burger, along with White and Powell said Affirmative Action justified to remedy past discrimination but refused to extend or expand on analysis in Bakke. Marshall, Brennan and Blackmun concurred in upholding the AA, but said that intermediate scrutiny should be used.

Dissent: Stewart, Rehnquist, Stevens said strict scrutiny should be applied.