# Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena > Supreme Court of the United States · June 12, 1995 · 515 U.S. 200 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433166 ## Case - **Full name:** ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. PENA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 12, 1995 - **Citations:** 515 U.S. 200; 40 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,756; 95 Daily Journal DAR 7503; 63 U.S.L.W. 4523; 78 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 357; 66 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,556; 67 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1828; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4381; 115 S. Ct. 2097; 132 L. Ed. 2d 158; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 4037 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scalia - **Judges:** O'Connor, Iii-D, Scalia, Iii-C, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Thomas, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer - **Cited by:** 1,140 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Reported overruled — as noted by a later court — not on the Supreme Court's list. - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 1 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433166 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that "all racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. In other words, such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that furt… - concluding contractor’s injury was “actual” related to contract it bid on and lost, and “imminent” related to future contracts because contractor “made an adequate showing that sometime in the relatively near future it will bid on another Government contract that offers financ… - holding that plaintiffs statement that it bid on every guardrail project in Colorado, combined with affidavits showing that there had been fourteen guardrail contracts up for bid between 1983 and 1990, created a sufficient certainty that plaintiff would bid on contracts in the… - finding real and immediate threat of future harm estab lished where contractor challenging use of subcontractor compensation clauses showed that defendant let at least one contract containing a subcontractor compensation clause each year and that contractor bid on all contract… - finding, under the test for standing articulated in Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, that a non-minority subcontractor had standing to contest a government policy that gave a financial incentive to general contractors to give preference to minority subcontractors in awa… ## Opinion text Justice Scalia, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. I join the opinion of the Court, except Part III-C, and except insofar as it may be inconsistent with the following: In my view, government can never have a “compelling interest” in discriminating on the basis of race in order to “make up” for past racial discrimination in the opposite direction. See Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, 520 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Individuals who have been wronged by unlawful racial discrimination should be made whole; but under our Constitution there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race. That concept is alien to the Constitution’s focus upon the individual, see Arndt. 14, § 1 (“[N]or shall any State ... deny to any person” the equal protection of the laws) (emphasis added), and its rejection of dispositions based on race, see Arndt. 15, § 1 (prohibiting abridgment of the right to vote “on account of race”), or based on blood, see Art. Ill, §3 (“[N]o Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood”); Art. I, § 9, cl. 8 (“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States”). To pursue the concept of racial entitlement — even for the most admirable and benign of purposes — is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American. It is unlikely, if not impossible, that the challenged program would survive under this understanding of strict scrutiny, but I am content to leave that to be decided on remand. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433166. Public record. Not legal advice.