Adarand Constructors, Inc. V. Pena

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena

115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995)

Text pg. 107

Issue: Whether the petitioner's right were violated under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment when it was not awarded a subcontract to build guardrails, even though it submitted a lower bid than a subcontractor certified as a small business controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals"?

Rule: The legal rule states "a classification will be a denial of equal protection unless the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state purpose. To withstand constitutional challenge under the strict scrutiny test, the law must serve important governmental objectives and the classification must be substantially related to achieving those objectives." (Corley, Reed, Shedd, and Morehead, 1999, p.107).

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide equality among individuals or classes but only equal application of the laws.

Analysis: There are many conflicting rulings dealing with the issue of minority set aside programs. In the case of Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that a 10 percent minority set-aside of federally funded public works contracts did not violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company (1989) the courts said that state government classifications by race, regardless of whether they were proposed for "remedial" or "benign" purposes, had to be subjected to strict scrutiny in order to pass constitutional muster under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the 30 percent of contracts set aside for minority contractors was unconstitutional.

In the 1990 case, Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, the Court upheld a Federal Communications Commission policy that gave preferences to certain minority and female applicants for broadcast station licenses. Intermediate scrutiny was used to conclude that the two challenged programs were constitutional.

In the case of Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena - Adarand, a noncertified construction company managed by a white person, submitted the lowest bid on a federal highway project. When it lost out to a certified competitor who had submitted a higher bid, Adarand alleged that this happened only because the "subcontractor compensation clause" in federal agency contracts