![]() The regulations violated Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Īdarand Constructors, Inc. The Court held that “generalized assertions” of past racial discrimination could not justify “rigid” racial quotas for the awarding of public contracts. In a 6-4 decision, the Court ruled against the City of Richmond who had adopted regulations that required companies awarded city construction contracts to subcontract 30 percent of their business to minority business enterprises.In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the Alabama Department of Public Safety’s plan that implemented a promotion scheme in which half of the department’s promotions to certain ranks would go to black officers if enough qualified blacks were available.The Court argued that Wygant’s layoff stemmed from race and, therefore, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Wygant who had been laid off even though teachers with the most seniority were not allowed to be laid off.The Court found that Congress could pursue the objectives of the minority business enterprise program under the Spending Power. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Congress. Congress enacted legislation requiring that at least 10 percent of federal funds granted for local public works programs had to be used to obtain services or supplies from businesses owned by minority group members. The Court held that the minority set-aside program was a legitimate exercise of congressional power. ![]() In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the use of a racial quota system violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 however, the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible.Regents of the University of California v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |