City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company
The United States Supreme Court held that the minority set-aside program of Richmond, Virginia, which gave preference to minority business enterprises (MBE) in the awarding of municipal contracts, was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
488 U.S. 469 · No. 87-998 · 1988 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jan 23, 1989 · argued Oct 5, 1988
Civil rights · Affirmative action
Struck down a local ordinance
Majority opinion: Sandra O'Connor
The voteMajorityDissent
6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Affirmed. City of Richmond lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
City of Richmond 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.
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the minority set-aside program of Richmond, Virginia, which gave preference to minority business enterprises (MBE) in the awarding of municipal contracts, was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the city failed to identify both the need for remedial action and that other non-discriminatory remedies would be insufficient.
Croson involved a minority set-aside program in the awarding of municipal contracts. Richmond, with a black population of just over 50 percent, had set a 30 percent goal in the awarding of city construction contracts, based on its findings that local, state, and national patterns of discrimination had resulted in all but complete lack of access for minority-owned businesses. The evidence that was introduced included: a statistical study indicating that, although the city's population was 50% black, only 0.67% of its prime construction contracts had been awarded to minority businesses in recent years; figures establishing that a variety of local contractors' associations had virtually no MBE members; the city's counsel's conclusion that the Plan was constitutional under Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448; and the statements of Plan proponents indicating that there had been widespread racial discrimination in the local, state, and national construction industries. Pursuant to the Plan, the city adopted rules requiring individualized consideration of each bid or request for a waiver of the 30% set-aside, and providing that a waiver could be granted only upon proof that sufficient qualified MBE's were unavailable or unwilling to participate The Supreme Court stated:
We, therefore, hold that the city has failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in apportioning public contracting opportunities on the basis of race. To accept Richmond's claim that past societal discrimination alone can serve as the basis for rigid racial preferences would be to open the door to competing claims for "remedial relief" for every disadvantaged group. The dream of a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based on inherently unmeasurable claims of past wrongs. [Citing Regents of the University of California v. Bakke].
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 1988 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(6)
Sandra O'ConnorWrote the majority opinion
John StevensWrote a concurrence
Anthony KennedyWrote a concurrence
Antonin ScaliaWrote a concurrence
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
Thurgood MarshallWrote a dissent
Harry BlackmunWrote a dissent
William BrennanJoined 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
- City of RichmondCity, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit (Virginia)
- Respondent
- J. A. Croson CompanyGovernment contractor
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required 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
- Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
- Struck down
- A local ordinance, as unconstitutional
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.
- Jan 23, 1989DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed. City of Richmond lost.
- Oct 5, 1988ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit: reversed and remanded, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Virginia Eastern 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
- 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
- Fullilove et al. v. Klutznick, Secretary of Commerce, et al.448 U.S. 448Jul 2, 1980 · 448 U.S. 448Civil rights6–36–3 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.