CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
W.B. Fisch, Fall 2002
Assignment #36
Congressional "affirmative action" or "benign" racial
classifications
Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980) (not assigned but
discussed in Adarand)
-
Congress requires contractors on federal money to use 10%
of it to hire minority-owned businesses as sub-contractors
-
what distinguishes Congress from state legislatures or city
councils in relation to "benign" racial classifications?
-
does it make sense for Congress to use categories of minority
beneficiaries who only live in certain areas of the country?
-
if so, should the preference for those beneficiaries be explicitly
limited by geography?
Metro Broadcasting (1990) (not assigned as such, but
discussed in Adarand)
-
Congress establishes a preference for minority-owned applicants
for the granting of broadcast licenses (not absolute, but a factor which
can be dispositive) and the purchasing of existing licensees at a discount
(absolute)
-
Court applies intermediate scrutiny
-
important state interest: diversity of programming
-
substantial fit: minority owners more likely to diversify
programming
-
would the regulation have survived "strict" scrutiny?
ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA, p. 864 (1995)
-
what regulation, imposed by what agency, for what purpose?
-
what standard of review is applicable?
-
should "benign" and "malicious" racial classifications be
treated differently?
-
should Congress be treated differently from the states?
-
what disposition of this case?
-
How do you think it should ultimately be decided on the merits?