City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)
Facts
In 1983, the City Council of Richmond, Virginia adopted regulations that required companies awarded city construction contracts to subcontract 30 percent of their business to minority business enterprises. The J.A. Croson Company, which lost its contract because of the 30 percent set-aside, brought suit against the city.
Issue
Did this program violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding
Yes, the minority set-aside program violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because this program was directed at the race of individuals, the court had to review it under strict scrutiny, and the court found that the program was not narrowly tailored because the program also benefitted all other types of minority racial classifications who were not discriminated against in the past.
Analysis
The city needed to show a compelling interest in apportioning public contracting opportunities on the basis of race. The Court found that general assertions of past racial discrimination could not justify the rigid racial quotas for the awarding of public contracts. Justice O’Connor stated, "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."
Facts
In 1983, the City Council of Richmond, Virginia adopted regulations that required companies awarded city construction contracts to subcontract 30 percent of their business to minority business enterprises. The J.A. Croson Company, which lost its contract because of the 30 percent set-aside, brought suit against the city.
Issue
Did this program violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding
Yes, the minority set-aside program violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because this program was directed at the race of individuals, the court had to review it under strict scrutiny, and the court found that the program was not narrowly tailored because the program also benefitted all other types of minority racial classifications who were not discriminated against in the past.
Analysis
The city needed to show a compelling interest in apportioning public contracting opportunities on the basis of race. The Court found that general assertions of past racial discrimination could not justify the rigid racial quotas for the awarding of public contracts. Justice O’Connor stated, "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."