Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena case brief

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena (1995)

Court overruled Metro and established that strict scrutiny must be applied to all government sponsored affirmative action programs. (Croson had left open the question of whether strict scrutiny standard would be applied for a 5^th A. claim)

Facts: Gov’t awarded prime contract for highway construction project to Mountain Gravel & Construction Co., who solicited subcontractor bids for some of the work. Adarand submitted low bid, but MG chose Gonzales b/c they would receive additional money from the government for hiring a small business controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged persons.”

Holding: All racial classifications imposed by the government but be reviewed under a strict scrutiny analysis. The classifications can only be deemed constitutional if they are narrowly tailored to measures that further compelling governmental interests. Overruled Metro to the extent that it is inconsistent.

• Adarand court says there are 3 “settled” principles about the EP clause of the 5^th A (still good law today):

1. Skepticism: Anything based on ethnic criteria is an issue of heightened scrutiny
2. Consistency: Resolves issue of what standard of review, colorblind concept that race will by definition trigger strict scrutiny.
3. Congruence: Moves 5^th Amendment EP component to be the same analysis as with the 14^th.

• NOTE: Scalia said that there could never be a compelling interest in using racial classifications to remedy prior discrimination.