DOCUMENT

BPR - Best Practice - Imperfections, and Challenges in State Inclusive Business Programs - WMBE 2007

  • YEAR CREATED: 2007
  • TYPE OF DOCUMENT: BPR - Best Practice
The document discusses the legal case of Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena and its impact on minority and women-business development programs. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of affirmative action programs in federal contracting. The Supreme Court initially ruled that such programs must meet a strict scrutiny standard and be narrowly tailored to address past discrimination. The case was remanded to the district court, which concluded that the specific program in question was not narrowly tailored. However, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed the district court's decision and found the program to be constitutional. After the Adarand decision, federal agencies made regulatory changes to their minority, women, and disadvantaged small business programs in an effort to comply with the "narrowly tailored" requirement. The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) implemented new regulations for its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program, shifting the focus from maximum DBE participation to achieving a "level playing field." The regulations also required states and transit authorities to base their DBE participation goals on the availability of DBEs in local markets and to use race-neutral measures to meet those goals. The document also mentions that several lower courts have addressed the issue of congressional authority to provide affirmative action remedies since the Adarand decision. These courts have looked at the record of congressional hearings and other evidence to determine whether the government has a compelling interest in adopting affirmative action programs. However, there is a lack of judicial consensus as to whether states or localities must independently justify the use of racial preferences to implement federal mandates.
MEMBERS ONLY DOWNLOAD
Advertisement

Similar Documents