Fullilove v. Klutznick(1980)
Reviewing the broad treatment of Congress’ power in the voting rights cases, the Court upheld a program requiring 10% of Fed funds granted for local public works projects to be used by the state of local grantee to procure supplies for services from minority businesses.
Burger concluded that the objectives of the program, to remedy past discrimination perpetuated by prevailing procurement practices, were within congressional power under the 14th Amend.
Concurring (Powell)- observed that Congress has been given a unique constitutional role in the enforcement of the post-Civil War Amendments. In this case, where Congress determined that where minority contractors were victims of discrimination and where Congress chose a reasonably necessary means to effectuate its purpose, there is no reason to invalidate the program.
More recently, the court seems to be less willing to defer to Congress’ judgment about the appropriate remedial responses to persistent racial discrimination.
Recently, there is some doubt on the Court’s depiction of Congress’ power in Katzenbach v. Morgan
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Supreme Court Cases and are similar to How did the court recognize far-reaching congressional remedial powers in Fullilove v. Klutznick(1980) case?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.