Fullilove v. Klutznick - The Facts Of The Case, The Supreme Court Decides, The Dissenting Opinion, Public Works Employment Act
H. Earl Fullilove, et al.
Philip M. Klutznick, U.S. Secretary of Commerce
That a provision in the law requiring that ten percent of all federal funds for local public works projects go to minority-owned businesses violates the U.S. Constitution.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioners
Robert G. Benisch, Robert J. Hickey
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Drew S. Days III
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Byron R. White
William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart
Date of Decision
2 July 1980
Affirmed lower court rulings rejecting the petitioners' claim that minority "set-asides" were unconstitutional.
The decision in Fullilove v. Klutznick clarified the U.S. Supreme Court's position on the constitutionality of minority set-aside programs. This directly impacted Congress' ability to craft future laws designed to address discrimination in a variety of industries.
In the wake of the Fullilove v. Klutznick decision, Congress enacted a number of new minority set-aside programs. State and local governments followed suit, although a number of those laws were later struck down in court.
- South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
- Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989).
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 512 U.S. 200 (1995).
Constitutional Law, 13th ed. New York: The Foundation Press Inc., 1997.
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale - Significance, Impact, Guarantee To A Public Trial
- Frontiero v. Richardson - Further Readings
- Fullilove v. Klutznick - The Facts Of The Case
- Fullilove v. Klutznick - Further Readings
- Fullilove v. Klutznick - The Supreme Court Decides
- Fullilove v. Klutznick - The Dissenting Opinion
- Fullilove v. Klutznick - Public Works Employment Act
- Other Free Encyclopedias