ow Congress was a better and more talented actor in this area than state and local governments. Eventually, this argument lost its force as new members of the Court began questioning the validity of subjecting the discriminatory laws enacted by the federal government to a lesser standard of review than those enacted by state and local governments.
Historical Analysis of Affirmative Action Laws
Strict scrutiny analysis under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was traditionally been applied in cases involving fundamental rights or suspect classifications. Under this analysis, a law must be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest. Generally, a suspect classification is one which gives distinct treatment to a group that has been historically subject to discrimination. As a result, distinct or discriminatory treatment of racial minorities has been held to be unconstitutional.
However, this analysis spelled trouble for laws which were intended to favor racial minority groups which had traditionally suffered discrimination. Under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress was given the power to enact legislation intended to "level the playing field" by giving preferential treatment to such minorities. Known as "affirmative action" programs, these laws effectively discriminated against the racial majority group: whites. Arguments were quickly formulated that affirmative action should also be subject to strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment, since they discriminated on the basis of race.
In 1978, the Court held that affirmative action programs enacted under state legislation will be analyzed under the strict scrutiny standard. That case involved an admissions program to the Medical School of the University of California at Davis. A white applicant who had been denied admission challenged the program under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protec...