Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta
The Supreme Court dismissed its own grant of review in this long-running challenge to a federal program favoring disadvantaged business owners on highway contracts, after finding the company challenging the program had shifted what it was actually contesting.
Because the company now said it was attacking a different part of the program than the part the lower court had actually ruled on, and had never challenged that lower court's finding that it lacked standing to raise the issue, the Court concluded it could not properly reach the constitutional question without first-ever lower-court review.
“we thus decline to reach the merits of petitioner’s present challenge”
The Court's explanation for why it would not rule on the constitutional question.
How it got here: After an earlier remand, the Tenth Circuit upheld part of DOT's program under the strict-scrutiny standard the Court had set, and the company sought Supreme Court review again.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A highway construction subcontractor challenged the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, which gave financial incentives to prime contractors who hired subcontractors owned by people considered socially and economically disadvantaged, often based on race. The company argued this violated its right to equal treatment under the Constitution. The dispute had already been to the Supreme Court once before and returned after further proceedings in the lower courts.
The question before the Court
Could the Supreme Court decide whether a federal highway program that favors minority-owned businesses is constitutional, given how the case had changed since it agreed to hear it?
Why it matters
The underlying constitutional question about race-conscious contracting programs remains unresolved by this decision. Government agencies and contractors continue operating under existing lower-court rulings and DOT regulations, and any final resolution of whether such programs meet strict scrutiny will have to wait for a case that squarely presents the issue with proper lower-court review.
What changes now
The writ of certiorari is dismissed, so the Tenth Circuit's ruling upholding the state-and-local DBE program under the new regulatory framework stands undisturbed. The broader constitutional question about race-conscious federal contracting programs remains open for a future case that properly presents standing and the specific programs at issue, with full lower-court review beforehand.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether the Department of Transportation's DBE program, or race-conscious federal contracting generally, satisfies strict scrutiny. It also did not decide whether the company had standing to challenge direct federal procurement statutes, leaving those questions open for future litigation.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court explained that reviewing the constitutional question would first require deciding whether the company had standing (the legal right to bring the challenge) to contest programs governing direct federal procurement of highway construction, since that question was never included in the petition asking the Court to hear the case.
- The Court noted that the lower appeals court had only analyzed the constitutionality of DOT regulations covering highway projects funded through states and localities, not the separate statutes and regulations governing direct federal procurement on federal lands, which the company now said it wanted reviewed.
- Applying its rule that it ordinarily does not decide issues neither raised nor resolved by the lower courts, the Court found it could not apply strict scrutiny (the toughest constitutional test, requiring a compelling reason and a closely tailored law) to programs the appeals court never analyzed.
- The Court also found that the company had never disputed the appeals court's explicit ruling that the company lacked standing to challenge the direct-procurement statutes, and that courts should not use their power to check standing on their own initiative just to reach an issue standing had already foreclosed below.
- Concluding that reviewing the constitutional question would require ruling on issues outside what the petition for certiorari presented, the Court held that dismissal, rather than a merits ruling, was the proper course despite the issue's importance.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (515 U. S. 200)
The Court reaffirmed that strict scrutiny governs federal race-based classifications under equal protection principles.