Free Adarand V. Pena Essay Example

In Adarand litigation, the issue that is being raised is the constitutionality of the different races to allowing for preferential treatment. When it came to issue of employment minority groups comprising of the blacks and the females had been treated unfairly over the past years. The affirmative action program were put in place to correct the unfair treatment towards the minority.
Meeting these requirements collectively is known as passing the test of scrutiny. Applying strict scrutiny involves the legislature to abridge fundamental rights in accordance with the enacted laws or passing a law, which involves some classification based on race, national origin, and religion.
Favoring the Adarand constructors was the correct option. It was completely unfair to give preference to the minority subcontractor during the bidding process. Moreover, bonuses were awarded to companies, which used disadvantaged business enterprises. This was completely unfair to the non-DBE. All individuals should be allowed to work on the same level regardless of gender or race.
Justice Stevens, Scouter, and Ginsberg all wrote separate rebellious opinion. They contradicted Scalia’s in regards to the affirmative action. I do conquer with Justice Thomas in his argument that there is no moral difference in laws to subjugate a race and laws to provide it benefits. When there is unjust treatment of a race or certain gender necessary action need to be taken to address the issue.
I conquer with Adarand v. Pena, the affirmative action program was totally unconstitutional. The system was generally flowed in that it allowed the DBEs to place bids above the non-DBE competitors. Moreover, federal money that was being set aside to provide bonuses for companies created a monetary gap.
The department of Transportation’s current rules did not pass the strict scrutiny. The current system created a fault in that it allowed individuals who are economically disadvantaged to qualify as a DBE, which seemed so unfair.