Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña

June 12, 1995

Similar to the Crose case, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña was the equivalent of the latter case but instead of state and local programs, it applied to federal programs. The Court again called for "strict scrutiny" in determining whether prejudice existed before applying a federal affirmative action program. "Strict scrutiny" meant that affirmative action programs fulfilled a "compelling governmental interest," and were "narrowly tailored" to match the specific circumstance. Although two of the judges felt that there should be a total outlaw of affirmative action, the majority of judges claimed that "the unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country" justified the use of race-based corrective measures in certain situations.