翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Adar oilfield
・ Adar Poonawalla
・ Adar Rhiannon
・ Adar River
・ Adar, Iran
・ Adar, Morocco
・ Adara
・ Adara Group
・ Adara Kanda
・ Adara language
・ Adarakatti
・ Adaran
・ Adaran Rural District
・ Adaran, Alborz
・ Adaran, Tehran
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña
・ Adaraneeya Kathawak
・ Adarangi
・ Adaranthe
・ Adarawanthayo
・ ADARB1
・ ADARB2
・ Adarbaigan (East Syrian Diocese)
・ Adare
・ Adare (disambiguation)
・ Adare Basin
・ Adare Friary
・ Adare GAA
・ Adare Manor
・ Adare Peninsula


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña : ウィキペディア英語版
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña

''Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña'', , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that racial classifications, imposed by the federal government, must be analyzed under a standard of "strict scrutiny," the most stringent level of review which requires that racial classifications be narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion of the Court, which effectively overturned ''Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC'', , in which the Court had created a two tiered system for analyzing racial classifications. Adarand held the federal government to the same standards as the state and local governments through a process of "reverse incorporation," in which the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause was held to bind the federal government to the same standards as state and local governments are bound under the 14th Amendment.
==Background==
At the time this case was litigated, many contracts led by agencies of the United States federal government contained financial incentives for the prime contractor to employ subcontractors that were owned or controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.” The US Small Business Administration would certify certain businesses as disadvantaged. That usually meant that the business was owned by racial or ethnic minority groups or by women. In this particular case the contract stated that “...the contractor shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities...”
In 1989 the US Department of Transportation (DOT) awarded a highway construction contract in Colorado to Mountain Gravel and Construction Company. Mountain Gravel solicited bids for a subcontract for guardrails along the highway. The lowest bid was submitted by Adarand Constructors, with a higher bid being submitted by Gonzales Construction. However, Gonzales Construction had been certified by the Small Business Administration as a disadvantaged business, and thus Mountain Gravel awarded the subcontract to Gonzales, due to financial incentives in the Mountain Gravel’s contract for employing disadvantaged businesses. Adarand filed suit in federal court against DOT, arguing that the subcontracting incentive clause, or bonus, that caused Adarand to lose a subcontract was unconstitutional. The federal district court and circuit court ruled in favor of DOT and against Adarand, which then appealed to the US Supreme Court. The case was docketed as ''Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Federico Peña, Secretary of Transportation, et al.'', because Federico Peña was the US Secretary of Transportation at that time. Mountain States Legal Foundation represented Adarand Constructors.
The questions before the Court was primarily: is the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a discriminatory practice that violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment?

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.