Megan Marangola

December 15, 2015

Government, 4
Adarand Constructors, Inc. V. Pena Law Brief

Topic
The case overall addressed topics such as racism, favored treatment and discriminatory
practice.

Relief sought
Both parties involved attempted to execute the following accomplishments. Pena was
goal was to receive additional compensation for the contractor hired while Adarand was simply
striving for a contracting job as well as fairness and equality.

Issues
The issue is simply the question, is the assumption of disadvantage based on race alone,
and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a discriminatory practice that violates the equal
protection principle embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Facts
The details that led up to the trial in the Supreme Court are as follows; under the terms of
the federal contract, the prime contractor of a government highway project (Pena), would receive
additional compensation if he hired small businesses controlled by "socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals." Through the clause, this catalogued Black Americans, Hispanic
Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities." After Adarand
Constructors Inc., a construction company, submitted the lowest bid, another subcontractor,
Gonzales Construction Company, was awarded the work. Later confirmed, Gonzales was
certified as a minority business; Adarand was not. The prime contractor would have accepted
Adarand's bid had it not been for the additional payment for hiring Gonzales he was receiving.

Finding of the trial court

The findings of the trial courts are admissible due to the fact that this specific case went
directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Finding of the appellate court

The findings of the appellate courts are admissible due to the fact that this specific case
went directly to the Supreme Court of the United States

Finding of the Supreme Court

 Judges of the Supreme Court came to decide that all racial classifications must be
analyzed under rigid standards. In addition, such classifications are constitutional only if they are
specifically customized measures that support the governmental interests at that time.

Reasoning / Opinion of the court

Although there were various views, dissenting and concurrent, both have commonalities.
The underlying opinion was that the government is attempting to make right on past and current
discrimination, by favoring minorities to benefit their business. However, the concurring
arguments states that the government can never take up compelling interests to make-up,
especially if it undermines the moral basis of equal protection.

Impact
Through this case, the impact is clear that this trial has brought new light to
discriminatory matters. The opinion that the government was attempting to right their previous
wrongs to minority groups indicates sincerity and empathy. On the other hand, some view the
government as somewhat corny and the wrongs should not have occured in the first place and by
favoring minorities, the moral code is altered even more, continuing a never ending cycle.

Works Cited

o Commentary on Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena." The Constitution

and Supreme Court. Woodbridge, CT: Primary Source Media, 1999.
American Journey. U.S. History in Context. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.
o Affirmative Action." UXL Encyclopedia of U.S. History. Sonia Benson,
Daniel E. Brannen, Jr., and Rebecca Valentine. Vol. 1. Detroit: UXL,
2009. 22-25. U.S. History in Context. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.
o SUGARMAN, STEPHEN D. "Supreme Court of the United States and
Education, the." Encyclopedia of Education. Ed. James W. Guthrie. 2nd
ed. Vol. 7. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2002. 2422-2425. U.S.
History in Context. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.
o Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pea Case Brief Summary." Lawnix Free
Case Briefs RSS. Lawnix, 2008-2015. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.