Fullilove v. Klutznick
Fullilove v. Klutznick | |
---|---|
Argued November 27, 1979 Decided July 2, 1980 | |
Full case name | H. Earl Fullilove, et al. v. Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary of Commerce, et al. |
Citations | 448 U.S. 448 (more) 100 S. Ct. 2758; 65 L. Ed. 2d 902; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 8 |
Case history | |
Prior | Complaint dismissed, Fullilove v. Kreps, 443 F. Supp. 253 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), affirmed, 584 F.2d 600 (2d Cir. 1978); cert. granted, 441 U.S. 960 (1979). |
Holding | |
U.S. Congress can constitutionally use its spending power to remedy "past discrimination". | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | Burger, joined by White, Powell |
Concurrence | Powell |
Concurrence | Marshall (in judgment), joined by Brennan, Blackmun |
Dissent | Stewart, joined by Rehnquist |
Dissent | Stevens |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. art. 1 § 8 | |
Overruled by | |
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (in part) |
Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980), 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.[1] 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.
Opinion of the Court
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 a plurality opinion, joined by Justices White and Powell; Justice Powell also wrote a separate concurrence. Justice Marshall delivered an opinion for a concurrence with an entirely different basis in law, joined by Justices Brennan and Blackmun.[1] Since there was neither a single opinion that represented the views of a majority of the court nor a clear proposition in opinion that commanded a majority, only the judgment of the court, affirming the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, unambiguously has precedential value.
The Court held that the minority set-aside program was a legitimate exercise of congressional power, and that under the particular facts at issue, 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 plurality further held that in the remedial context, Congress did not have to act "in a wholly 'color-blind' fashion."
Dissent
Two dissenting opinions were written, one by Justice Stewart, joined by Justice Rehnquist, and the other by Justice Stevens. Justice Stevens objected to the congressional procedures to determine the 10% set-aside figure.[1]
Subsequent history
Fullilove v. Klutznick was overruled by Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña.[2] There the Court adopted strict scrutiny for race preference in federal contracting. This brought the standard of review into uniformity with City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., which applied strict scrutiny for race preferences in state and local government contracting.[3]
See also
References
- ^ a b c Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980).
- ^ Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).
- ^ City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989).
External links
- Text of Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- v
- t
- e
lower court decisions
Education |
|
---|---|
Employment |
|
Grants, Contracting, and Set-Asides |
|
and edicts
- Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866
- Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868)
- Executive Order 10925 (1961)
- Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Executive Order 11246 (1965)
- Proposition 209 (CA, 1996)
- Initiative 200 (WA, 1998)
- Proposal 2 (MI, 2006)
- Amendment 46 (CO, 2008, failed)
- Initiative 424 (NE, 2008)
- Proposition 107 (AZ, 2010)
- State Question 759 (OK, 2012)
- Referendum 88 (WA, 2019, failed)
- Proposition 16 (CA, 2020, failed)
- Peter Arcidiacono
- Edward Blum
- Carl Cohen
- Ward Connerly
- Arthur Fletcher
- Richard Kahlenberg
- Richard Sander
- Stuart Taylor Jr.
- Abigail Thermstrom
- Stephan Thermstrom
- Ron Unz