Ricci V. Destefano Case Study

Seeking to fight past discrimination in their city, the city council of Richmond, Virginia created a program that required 30% of all municipal contracts go to Minority Business Enterprises (MBEs). In 1989, the J.A. Croson Company challenged the program, after not receiving a contract because of the MBE program, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court ruled in favor of the Croson Company stating, “While there is no doubt that the sorry history of both private and public discrimination in this country has contributed to a lack of opportunities for black entrepreneurs, this observation, standing alone, cannot justify a rigid racial quota in the awarding of public contracts in Richmond, Virginia.” Justice
DeStefano. The city of New Haven, Connecticut administered written and oral tests to fill vacancies in the positions of captain and lieutenants. The tests returned “qualified” candidates who were only white. The city decided to reject the tests because they had a “disparate and adverse impact on blacks.” Frank Ricci sued the city arguing the city violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Tittle VII of the Civil Rights Act when they did not accept the three white candidates. He further argued, if the court ruled in favor of the city, than governments could discriminate against whites as much as they would like. The courts ruled in favor of Ricci stating, “the employer must have ‘strong basis in evidence,’ that will be subject to ‘disparate impact liability’ if it fails to take discriminatory action.” Similar to City of Richmond v. Croson, the court declared there was not sufficient evidence to require special actions to be taken to fight
Katzenbach (1966) and Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was called into question. In 1966, South Carolina argued Congress did get the authority from Section 2 of the 15th Amendment to pass the Voting Rights Act. The also stated, had Congress had the power from the 15th Amendment, it would violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment. The court dismissed their claim and stated the right to due process is guaranteed to the individual and not the state. Fast-forward to 2013 and sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act are challenged because Shelby County contended they violated the 10th Amendment (the national government infringing upon the sovereignty of the states) and Article IV of the Constitution (the states are not treated equally). The court ruled in favor of Shelby County citing the Coverage Clause of Section 4(b) did not treat the states equally and subjugated several to voter law scrutiny. However, South Carolina made the same arguments in 1966, but the court rejected those claims. The biggest difference between the two is the earlier sought to invalidate the entire Act while the most recent only challenged parts of