''Fullilove v. Klutznick'', 448 U.S. 448 (1980), was a case in which the

United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...

held that the

U.S. Congress The United States Congress is the legislature of the federal government of the United States. It is Bicameralism, bicameral, composed of a lower body, the United States House of Representatives, House of Representatives, and an upper body, ...

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.

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 Warren Earl Burger (September 17, 1907 – June 25, 1995) was an American attorney and jurist who served as the 15th chief justice of the United States from 1969 to 1986. Born in Saint Paul, Minnesota, Burger graduated from the St. Paul Colleg ...

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. 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 The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution ( Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and amon ...

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 William Hubbs Rehnquist ( ; October 1, 1924 – September 3, 2005) was an American attorney and jurist who served on the U.S. Supreme Court for 33 years, first as an associate justice from 1972 to 1986 and then as the 16th chief justice from 1 ...

, and the other by

Justice Stevens John Paul Stevens (April 20, 1920 – July 16, 2019) was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1975 to 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the second-olde ...

. Justice Stevens objected to the congressional procedures to determine the 10% set-aside figure.

Subsequent history

''Fullilove v. Klutznick'' was overruled by ''

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña ''Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña'', 515 U.S. 200 (1995), was a List of landmark court decisions in the United States, landmark Supreme Court of the United States, United States Supreme Court case which held that racial classifications, impos ...

''. There the Court adopted

strict scrutiny In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate th ...

for race preference in federal contracting. This brought the standard of review into uniformity with ''

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. ''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 minority set-aside program of Richmond, Virginia, which gave preference to minority business enterprises (MBE) in the ...

'', which applied strict scrutiny for race preferences in state and local government contracting..

References

External links

* {{US5thAmendment, dueprocess United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court United States affirmative action case law United States equal protection case law 1980 in United States case law United States racial discrimination case law

Opinion of the Court

Dissent

Subsequent history

See also

References

External links