Fullilove et al. v. Klutznick, Secretary of Commerce, et al.
The United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Congress could constitutionally use its spending power to remedy the effects of past discrimination.
448 U.S. 448 · No. 78-1007 · 1979 term · Burger Court
Decided Jul 2, 1980 · argued Nov 27, 1979
Civil rights · Affirmative action
Majority opinion: Warren Burger
The voteMajorityDissent
6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Affirmed. Fullilove et al. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Fullilove et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Congress could constitutionally use its spending power to remedy the effects of past discrimination. The case arose as a suit against the enforcement of provisions in a 1977 spending bill that required 10% of federal funds going towards public works programs to go to minority-owned companies.
Chief Justice Burger's decision to allow "benign" (as opposed to "invidious") racial classifications under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment was controversial. The Marshall plurality argued to uphold the program under an equal protection analysis by applying intermediate scrutiny to benign racial classifications. The Court generally rejected arguments that benign racial classifications stigmatize the minority beneficiaries, burden non-beneficiaries and are overinclusive of minority individuals who may not be in need of a remedy for past discrimination.
Fullilove was overruled in part by Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1979 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(6)
Warren BurgerWrote the majority opinion
Thurgood MarshallWrote a concurrence
Lewis PowellWrote a concurrence
William BrennanJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
John StevensWrote a dissent
Potter StewartWrote a dissent
William RehnquistJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Fullilove et al.Government contractor
- Respondent
- Klutznick, Secretary of Commerce, et al.Department or Secretary of Commerce
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 91 Stat. 116
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jul 2, 1980DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed. Fullilove et al. lost.
- Nov 27, 1979ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
24 other argued cases since 1946 on affirmative action, newest first.
- Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard CollegeLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity600 U.S. 181Jun 29, 2023 · 600 U.S. 181Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity6–27–2 band
- Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin579 U.S. 365Jun 23, 2016 · 579 U.S. 365Civil rights4–36–3 band
- Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative ActionLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity572 U.S. 291Apr 22, 2014 · 572 U.S. 291Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity6–27–2 band
- Abigail Noel Fisher, Petitioner v. University of Texas at Austin et al.570 U.S. 297Jun 24, 2013 · 570 U.S. 297Civil rights7–18–1 band
- Frank Ricci, et al. v. John Destefano et al.557 U.S. 557Jun 29, 2009 · 557 U.S. 557Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Barbara Grutter v. Lee Bollinger et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity539 U.S. 306Jun 23, 2003 · 539 U.S. 306Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity5–45–4 band
- Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher v. Lee Bollinger et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity539 U.S. 244Jun 23, 2003 · 539 U.S. 244Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity6–36–3 band
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Federico Pena, Secretary of Transportation, et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity515 U.S. 200Jun 12, 1995 · 515 U.S. 200Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity5–45–4 band
- Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.497 U.S. 547Jun 27, 1990 · 497 U.S. 547Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Martin et al. v. Wilks et al.490 U.S. 755Jun 12, 1989 · 490 U.S. 755Civil rights5–45–4 band
- City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company488 U.S. 469Jan 23, 1989 · 488 U.S. 469Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California, et al.480 U.S. 616Mar 24, 1987 · 480 U.S. 616Civil rights6–36–3 band
- United States v. Paradise et al.480 U.S. 149Feb 25, 1987 · 480 U.S. 149Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Local Number 93, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, C. L. C. v. City of Cleveland et al.478 U.S. 501Jul 2, 1986 · 478 U.S. 501Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association et al. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al.478 U.S. 421Jul 2, 1986 · 478 U.S. 421Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Wygant et al. v. Jackson Board of Education et al.476 U.S. 267May 19, 1986 · 476 U.S. 267Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts et al.467 U.S. 561Jun 12, 1984 · 467 U.S. 561Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Rossi et al.456 U.S. 25Mar 31, 1982 · 456 U.S. 25Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Minnick et al. v. California Department of Corrections et al.452 U.S. 105Jun 1, 1981 · 452 U.S. 105Civil rights8–18–1 band
- United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber et al.443 U.S. 193Jun 27, 1979 · 443 U.S. 193Civil rights5–27–2 band
- Southeastern Community College v. Davis442 U.S. 397Jun 11, 1979 · 442 U.S. 397Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Regents of the University of California v. BakkeLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity438 U.S. 265Jun 26, 1978 · 438 U.S. 265Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity5–45–4 band
- Morton, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Mancari et al.417 U.S. 535Jun 17, 1974 · 417 U.S. 535Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Defunis et al. v. Odegaard et al.416 U.S. 312Apr 23, 1974 · 416 U.S. 312Civil rights5–45–4 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.