Fullilove v. Klutznick

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Fullilove v. Klutznick
ArgueDate=November 27
ArgueYear=1979
DecideDate=July 2
DecideYear=1980
FullName=H. Earl Fullilove, et al. v. Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary of Commerce, et al.
USVol=448
USPage=448
Citation=100 S. Ct. 2758; 65 L. Ed. 2d 902; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 8; 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P31,026; 27 Cont. Cas. Fed. (CCH) P80,496
Prior=Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Subsequent=
Holding=The Court held that the U.S. Congress could constitutionally use its spending power to remedy past discrimination. The case arose as a suit against the enforcement of provisions in a 1977 spending bill that required 10% of federal funds going towards public works programs to go to minority-owned companies.
SCOTUS=1975-1981
Majority=Burger
JoinMajority=White, Powell
Concurrence=Powell
Concurrence2=Marshall
JoinConcurrence2=Brennan, Blackmun
Dissent=Stewart
JoinDissent=Rehnquist
Dissent2=Stevens
LawsApplied=U.S. Const.

"Fullilove v. Klutznick", 448 U.S. 448 (1980)ref|citation, was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Congress could constitutionally use its spending power to remedy past discrimination. The case arose as a suit against the enforcement of provisions in a 1977 spending bill that required 10% of federal funds going towards public works programs to go to minority-owned companies.

The Court was deeply divided as to both the rationale for the decision and the outcome. Five separate opinions were filed, none of which commanded the support of more than three members of the Court. Chief Justice Burger wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices White and Powell (although Powell also wrote a separate concurrence); Justice Marshall wrote a concurrence with an entirely different basis in law, joined by Justices Brennan and Blackmun.

The 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."

Two dissenting opinions were written, one by Justice Stewart, joined by Justice Rehnquist, and the other by Justice Stevens.

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 448

External links

*ussc|448|448|Text of the opinion on Findlaw.com