- City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.
-
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.
Supreme Court of the United StatesArgued October 5, 1988
Decided January 23, 1989Full case name City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. Docket nos. 87-998 Citations 488 U.S. 469 (more)
109 S. Ct. 706Holding Racial quotas for awarding government contracts are not justified by general statistical evidence of inequality. The city did not investigate any race-neutral methods to correct the imbalance, nor did its 30% goal correspond to any actual measured injury. Strict scrutiny is warranted, a test which Richmond's law fails. Court membership Chief Justice
William RehnquistAssociate Justices
William J. Brennan, Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony KennedyCase opinions Majority O'Connor (Parts I, III-B, and IV), joined by Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Kennedy Plurality O'Connor (Part II), joined by Rehnquist, White Plurality O'Connor (Parts III-A and V), joined by Rehnquist, White, Kennedy Concurrence Stevens Concurrence Scalia Concurrence Kennedy Dissent Marshall, joined by Brennan, Blackmun Dissent Blackmun, joined by Brennan City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989) was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the city of Richmond's minority set-aside program, which gave preference to minority business enterprises (MBE) in the awarding of municipal contracts, was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the city failed to identify both the need for remedial action and that other non-discriminatory remedies would be insufficient.
Croson involved a minority set-aside program in the awarding of municipal contracts. Richmond, Virginia, with a black population of just over 50 percent had set a 30 percent goal in the awarding of city construction contracts, based on its findings that local, state, and national patterns of discrimination had resulted in all but complete lack of access for minority-owned businesses. The Supreme Court stated:
"We, therefore, hold that the city has failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in apportioning public contracting opportunities on the basis of race. To accept Richmond's claim that past societal discrimination alone can serve as the basis for rigid racial preferences would be to open the door to competing claims for "remedial relief" for every disadvantaged group. The dream of a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based on inherently unmeasurable claims of past wrongs. [Citing Regents of the University of California v. Bakke]. Courts would be asked to evaluate the extent of the prejudice and consequent harm suffered by various minority groups. Those whose societal injury is thought to exceed some arbitrary level of tolerability then would be entitled to preferential classification. We think such a result would be contrary to both the letter and the spirit of a constitutional provision whose central command is equality."
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 488
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
References
- Williams, Patricia J. "The Alchemy of Race and Rights", Harvard University Press. Cambridge: 1991, Pg. 105
External links
- Text of City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989) is available from: Justia · Findlaw
Affirmative action in the United States Supreme Court decisions Brown v. Board of Education (1954) • Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) • United Steelworkers v. Weber (1979) • Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980) • Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986) • City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989) • Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995) • Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) • Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) • Parents v. Seattle (2007) • Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)Federal legislation and edicts Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) • Executive Order 10925 (1961) • Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Executive Order 11246 (1965)State initiatives Proposition 209 (CA, 1996) • Initiative 200 (WA, 1998) • Proposal 2 (MI, 2006) • Initiative 424 (NE, 2008)People Categories:- United States Supreme Court cases
- United States affirmative action case law
- United States equal protection case law
- 1989 in United States case law
- United States Supreme Court stubs
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.