In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, there has been an increase in legal challenges to race and gender-based programs and initiatives in multiple contexts, including within government contracting. While the holding of Students for Fair Admissions did not address public contracting or disturb existing case law that considers the validity of similar government contracts programs, the decision has informed and reshaped the landscape for strict scrutiny challenges to these programs, and there has been a significant uptick in challenges to diversity-focused government procurement regulations.
Last month, in Mid-America Milling Company, LLC, et al., v. U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky temporarily enjoined the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) from mandating the use of race- and gender-based presumptions for DOT contracts impacted by Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) goals. The court found, among other things, that while DOT’s DBE program intends to combat historical discrimination and its lingering effects on the ability of disadvantaged businesses to equally compete for government contracts, the plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits of its argument that the program’s “race and gender classifications” violate the Equal Protection clause.
Although the preliminary injunction currently remains geographically constrained to Kentucky and Indiana, the case is an important development for government contractors that are impacted by DBE related contracts. We summarize the key takeaways from the court’s holding, as well as its implications for government contractors, below.Continue Reading Federal Court Enjoins DOT Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program On Equal Protection Grounds