Skip to main content

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater

U.S. Supreme CourtJanuary 12, 2000No. 99-295Cited 243 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Per Curiam
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Remanded to lower court for reconsideration under strict scrutiny standard
Circuit
Federal Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings regarding the constitutionality of federal affirmative action contracting programs under strict scrutiny review.

What This Ruling Means

**Adarand Constructors v. Slater: Supreme Court Case on Affirmative Action Programs** This case involved a construction company that challenged the federal government's affirmative action contracting programs. Adarand Constructors argued that the Department of Transportation's programs giving preferences to minority-owned businesses in federal contracts violated their constitutional rights to equal treatment under the law. The company claimed these programs amounted to illegal race discrimination against non-minority contractors. The Supreme Court did not make a final ruling on whether these programs were legal or illegal. Instead, the Court sent the case back to lower courts with instructions to apply "strict scrutiny" - the highest level of constitutional review - when examining federal affirmative action programs. This meant lower courts had to determine whether the government's programs served a compelling interest and were narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. This decision matters for workers because it affects how the government can structure programs designed to increase opportunities for minority-owned businesses and their employees. The ruling established that all federal affirmative action programs must meet very high constitutional standards, potentially making it harder for the government to maintain programs that aim to address workplace discrimination or promote diversity in federal contracting.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Enoch
N.C. Ct. App.Jun 2004

<bold>Public Officers and Employees — race discrimination claim — §</bold> <bold>1983 — Title VII</bold> <block_quote> The trial court erred by granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff county DSS employee's race discrimination claims even though the complaint appears to attempt to assert a claim directly under the federal constitution instead of referencing <cross_reference>42 U.S.C. § 1983</cross_reference>, because: (1) the mere fact that a complaint neglects to specify that it is based on § 1983 does not require dismissal even though referencing the statute is the more preferable course; (2) the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to support a § 1983 claim for violation of plaintiff's equal protection rights against both defendant DSS director individually and defendant DSS employer; and (3) a state or local government employee may pursue claims of race discrimination under Title VII, § 1983, or both.</block_quote>

Plaintiff Win
Richardson v. Petasis
D.D.C.Dec 2015
Mixed Result
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
D.D.C.Sep 2007
Remanded
Thomas
Ohio Ct. App.May 2020

Arbitration agreement race discrimination retaliation motion to stay litigation pending arbitration procedurally unconscionable. - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting employer's motion to stay litigation pending arbitration of plaintiff's race discrimination and retaliation claims where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his claims were not subject to arbitration and that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable.

Dismissed
Boone v. Rice
D.D.C.Dec 2009
Mixed Result

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.