Constitutional Law — Equal Protection
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)
Study notes for City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Strict scrutiny applies to racial set-aside programs; without compelling interest and narrow tailoring, they violate the Equal Protection Clause.
In this pivotal case, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of racial set-aside programs under the Equal Protection Clause. The majority opinion, delivered by Justice O'Connor, emphasized that any government action that discriminates based on race is subject to strict scrutiny, which requires a compelling governmental interest and evidence of narrowly tailored means to achieve that interest. Richmond's ordinance was found to lack the necessary empirical support to justify its racial classifications and did not effectively target the specific harms it sought to remedy, leading to its invalidation.
Additionally, the case underscores the tension between remedial affirmative action and the principles of color-blind justice, setting a significant precedent for future cases involving racial preferences in government contracting. The need for concrete evidence demonstrating discrimination against minority-owned businesses highlighted the Court's demand for careful scrutiny when considering race in legislation.
Croson Can't Count - remember that Croson failed to provide compelling evidence to support its race-based actions.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Loving v. Virginia | Loving involved a fundamental right (marriage) and clear racial discrimination. Croson focused on economic affirmative action. |
| Grutter v. Bollinger | Grutter upheld affirmative action in higher education, focusing on diversity as a compelling interest, whereas Croson rejected economic set-asides due to lack of evidence. |
Proponents argue that strict scrutiny ensures that all individuals are treated equally and that race-based classifications should be justified by robust evidence of prior discrimination.
Critics contend that strict scrutiny can undermine necessary affirmative action programs designed to rectify historical injustices and promote diversity in all sectors.
In exams, this case is often used to assess understanding of strict scrutiny and its application to racial classifications in law. Be prepared to analyze the sufficiency of governmental interests in the context of affirmative action.