The Court rejected the dissent’s argument – seemingly accepted by a Croson majority-that Congress’s more extensive authority to adopt racial classifications must trace to section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and instead ruled that Congress also may rely on race-conscious measures in exercise of its commerce and spending powers. Metro Broadcasting was noteworthy for several other reasons as well. Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion contended that the case does not present ‘a considered decision of the Congress and the President.’ Id. Because Congress later endorsed these policies, however, the Court was able to conclude that they bore the imprimatur of longstanding congressional support and direction. These racial preferences – unlike the set-asides at issue in Fullilove-originated as administrative policies rather than statutory mandates.
#Judicial scrutiny license#
6 FootnoteĪt issue in Metro Broadcasting were two minority preference policies of the FCC, one recognizing an enhancement for minority ownership and participation in management when the FCC considers competing license applications, and the other authorizing a distress sale transfer of a broadcast license to a minority enterprise. It followed that Richmond’s set-aside program also was not narrowly tailored to remedy the effects of past discrimination in the city: an individualized waiver procedure made the quota approach unnecessary, and a minority entrepreneur from anywhere in the country could obtain an absolute racial preference. The Court also said that because the ordinance defined minority group members to include citizens of the United States who are Blacks, Spanish-speaking, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos, or Aleuts, this expansive definition impugn the city’s claim of remedial motivation, there having been no evidence of any past discrimination against non-black racial minorities in the Richmond construction industry. here special qualifications are necessary, the relevant statistical pool for purposes of demonstrating exclusion must be the number of minorities qualified to undertake the particular task. Mere recitation of a benign or remedial purpose will not suffice, the Court concluded, nor will reliance on the disparity between the number of contracts awarded to minority firms and the minority population of the city. In Croson, the Court ruled that the city had failed to establish a compelling interest in the racial quota system because it failed to identify past discrimination in its construction industry.
The FCC policies, the Court explained, are benign, race-conscious measures that are substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental objective of broadcast diversity. applied a more lenient standard of review in upholding two racial preference policies used by the FCC in the award of radio and television broadcast licenses.
Justice O’Connor wrote a dissenting opinion joined by the Chief Justice and by Justices Scalia and Kennedy, and Justice Kennedy added a separate dissenting opinion joined by Justice Scalia. This was a 5-4 decision, Justice Brennan’s opinion of the Court being joined by Justices White, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens. By contrast, the Court in Metro Broadcasting, Inc. Applying strict scrutiny, the Court found Richmond’s program to be deficient because it was not tied to evidence of past discrimination in the city’s construction industry. the Court invalidated a minority set-aside requirement that holders of construction contracts with the city subcontract at least 30% of the dollar amount to minority business enterprises. Justice Scalia concurred separately Justices Marshall, Brennan, and Blackmun dissented. The latter two Justices joined only part of Justice O’Connor’s opinion each added a separate concurring opinion.
The portions of Justice O’Connor’s opinion adopted as the opinion of the Court were joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and by Justices White, Stevens, and Kennedy. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Ī clear distinction was then drawn between federal and state power to apply racial classifications. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
0 kommentar(er)
