Fullilove v. Klutznick
| Fullilove v. Klutznick | |
|---|---|
| Argued November 27, 1979 Decided July 2, 1980 | |
| Full case name | H. Earl Fullilove, et al. v. Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary of Commerce, et al. |
| Citations | 448 U.S. 448 (more) 100 S. Ct. 2758; 65 L. Ed. 2d 902; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 8 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Complaint dismissed, Fullilove v. Kreps, 443 F. Supp. 253 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), affirmed, 584 F.2d 600 (2d Cir. 1978); cert. granted, 441 U.S. 960 (1979). |
| Holding | |
| U.S. Congress can constitutionally use its spending power to remedy "past discrimination". | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Burger, joined by White, Powell |
| Concurrence | Powell |
| Concurrence | Marshall (in judgment), joined by Brennan, Blackmun |
| Dissent | Stewart, joined by Rehnquist |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. 1 § 8 | |
Overruled by | |
| Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (in part) | |
Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Congress could constitutionally use its spending power to remedy the effects of past discrimination. The case arose as a suit against the enforcement of provisions in a 1977 spending bill that required 10% of federal funds going towards public works programs to go to minority-owned companies.
Chief Justice Burger's decision to allow "benign" (as opposed to "invidious") racial classifications under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment was controversial. The Marshall plurality argued to uphold the program under an equal protection analysis by applying intermediate scrutiny to benign racial classifications. The Court generally rejected arguments that benign racial classifications stigmatize the minority beneficiaries, burden non-beneficiaries and are overinclusive of minority individuals who may not be in need of a remedy for past discrimination.
Fullilove was overruled in part by Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña.