Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co.
Significance, Related Cases, Further Readings
City of Richmond
J. A. Croson Co.
That the Richmond City ordinance that non-minority owned primary contractors on city construction contracts must pledge at least 30 percent "set-aside" (assign that portion of the job) to minority subcontractors, did not violate the Constitution.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Walter H. Ryland
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor (writing for the Court), William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr.
Date of Decision
5 October 1988
That Richmond's ordinance of requiring non-minority contractors to pledge 30 percent of city construction contracts to minority subcontractors was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
- Rust v. Sullivan - Significance, Supreme Court Rejects Challenges To The "gag Rule" On Federally Funded Family Planning Clinics
- Richard Lyon Trial: 1991-92 - Doctor's Suspicions Prompt Investigation, Lawyer Promises Perry Mason Defense, A Marriage On The Rocks
- Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. - Significance
- Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. - Further Readings
- Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. - Related Cases
- Other Free Encyclopedias