X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Justice Antonin Scalia accused fellow Supreme Court justices of going soft on affirmative action, saying Monday the Court is abandoning its own strict rules for when government may treat one race differently from another. Fresh off last session’s divisive case involving affirmative action in college admissions, Scalia argued that the high court should revisit racial preferences in the awarding of government contracts. A special program for minority businesses in Denver plainly does not meet the test the Supreme Court has set for such programs, and the Court should have said so, Scalia wrote in an unusual dissent. Most of the justices voted not to hear the Denver dispute, meaning a lower court ruling in the city’s favor will stand. Scalia’s written objection broke the ordinary silence that surrounds the Court’s choices about which cases to hear. “If the evidence relied upon by governmental units to justify their use of racial classifications can be as inconclusive as Denver’s evidence in this case, our former insistence upon a ‘strong basis in evidence’ has been abandoned,” Scalia wrote. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist also signed Scalia’s dissent. In June, a divided Supreme Court allowed the nation’s colleges and universities to select students using considerations that include race. The Court majority emphasized that race cannot be the overriding factor but acknowledged a broad social value from affirmative action. The Denver case involved Concrete Works of Colorado Inc., a company that contends it unfairly lost contracts to minority businesses. Lawyers for the city argued the program does not impose quotas or set-asides but does try to help contractors who have been discriminated against. Charles Rothfeld, one of Denver’s attorneys, told justices in a filing that there was overwhelming evidence of discrimination in Denver construction and the city program was directed to fix that. Conservative groups, including the Pacific Legal Foundation, supported the contracting company. They told the Court in a brief that the city program is too broad, giving “preference to Eskimos, Aleuts, and adds Native Hawaiians for good measure.” The Supreme Court should have used the case to make clear that it stands by its previous insistence that any racial line-drawing is suspect, and the courts will vigorously “smoke out illegitimate uses of race,” Scalia wrote. To justify such a broad program, the government that sponsors it must show evidence that past discrimination was so pervasive that any minority business would have suffered, Scalia said. “Absent such evidence of pervasive discrimination, Denver’s seeming limitation of the set-asides to victims of racial discrimination is a sham, and the only function of the preferences is to channel a fixed percentage of city contracting dollars to firms identified by race,” he wrote. Scalia and Rehnquist were on the losing side in the college admissions case, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy. Thomas and Kennedy did not sign on to Scalia’s objection in Monday’s case and did not say why. All four justices have opposed affirmative action policies in the past, including in other cases involving government contracts. The case is Concrete Works of Colorado Inc. v. Denver, 02-1673. Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.