Alexander v. Sandoval. 532 U.S. 275 (2001)

                This case goes directly to the regulation of federally funded programs. The regulations are in regards to race and affect African-Americans greatly because they are in place to ensure that federally funded programs are not stricken by discriminatory practices on the basis of race. This is relevant to affirmative action programs because it provides yet another example of how the legal trend in this country is to recognize that people have inherently been treated differently over the past couple hundreds of years. There is a recognition that we must treat people differently in order to ensure that they get the same opportunities.

Fullilove v. Klutznick. 448 U.S. 448, 100 S.Ct. 2758 (1980)

                This action was brought seeking injunctions to prevent enforcement of “minority business enterprise” provision of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977. This provision required that at least 10% of federal funds granted for local public works projects must be used by the state or local grantee to procure services or supplies from business by minority group members. The court found that the provision was constitutional and dismissed the complaint. This is relevant to the overall idea of affirmative action because it is yet another example of the government or a private party rightfully granting protection and giving advantages to African-American workers because they are a protected class that has been treated poorly in terms of employment over the years.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)

                This case sets up the procedure that courts can use to determine if employers violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating in its employment practices against minority workers. This is relevant to affirmative action and race-consciousness because it places a burden on employers to ensure that their employment practices are not only non-discriminatory on their face, but that they do not have an adverse impact on a protected class even if their procedures are facially neutral. Decisions like this one have gone to persuade employers that affirmative action programs and race-conscious employment practices should be done to shield themselves from liability under this and similar cases.

Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al. 497 U.S. 547, 110 S.Ct. 2997 (1990).

                Petitions were filed seeking review of the FCC’s order that awarded enhancement for minority ownership in comparative proceedings for new licenses and challenging minority “distress sale” program permitting limited category of existing radio and television stations to be transferred only to minority controlled firms. This case is yet another example of race-consciousness and the fact that race-conscious procedures have continually been upheld on the basis that they are necessary in order to allow members of minority racial groups to gain and retain opportunities that they would not otherwise have. This case being heard and decided in 1990, it shows the evolving trend of federal legislation that not only provides protection for, but gives incentive to employers, agencies, and even the government to purposefully pursue protection of members of protected classes including minority races, and specifically African-Americans.

Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company. 488 U.S. 469, 109 S.Ct. 706 (1989)

                In this case, a bidder brought suit challenging the city of Richmond’s plan that required prime contractors awarded city construction contracts to subcontract at least 30% of the dollar amount of each contract to one or more “Minority Business Enterprises.” This is yet another example of the government taking the lead in terms of race-conscious remedies. While the challenge was struck down in the trial court and at the appellate level, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case and the Court of Appeals on remand found that the city failed to demonstrate compelling governmental interest justifying the plan, and that the plan was not narrowly tailored to remedy effects of prior discrimination. While the holding was not beneficial for minority sub-contractors, it did show an attempt on the part of the city government to right the wrongs of past discrimination. Even though it got struck down, this case went a long way in terms of showing the people of the city of Richmond, especially members of minority racial groups, that their government recognized the need for race-conscious remedies.