Rothe Development Corp. v. Department of Defense - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group

July 23, 2009

David F. Barton, Matthew Camardella, Roger Clegg

To listen, please right click on the audio file you wish to hear and then select "Save Link As..." or "Save Target As..." After you save the audio file to your computer, you can then listen to it in your audio player of choice.

 Rothe Development Corp. v. Department of Defense 7-23-09 - MP3
Running Time: 00:54:26

On Election Day, November 4, 2008, a panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Rothe Development Corp. v. United States Department of Defense, unanimously struck down the Department of Defense’s affirmative action program as unconstitutional racial discrimination.  The program struck down in Rothe required the U.S. Department of Defense, the Coast Guard, the U.S. Department of Air Force, and the National Aeronautic and Space Administration to ensure that five percent of all contract dollars be awarded to individuals or businesses designated as disadvantaged individuals.  The Federal Circuit held Section 1207 unconstitutional because Congress did not have sufficient evidence to support racial preferences.  Among the issues addressed in this podcast include whether racial disparity studies provide sufficient evidence to support affirmative action programs that grant racial preferences and what impact this decision has on other affirmative action programs.

Featuring:

  • Mr. David F. Barton, The Gardner Law Firm, counsel to Rothe Development Corp.
  • Mr. Matthew J. Camardella, American Association for Affirmative Action
  • Moderator: Mr. Roger Clegg, Center for Equal Opportunity

 

[Return to the Practice Groups Podcasts menu]

Related Links

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Case Ruling, 545 F. 3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2008) - PDF
“Contract goal for small disadvantaged businesses and certain institutions of higher education” 10 U.S.C. § 2323
Brief of Appellees/Defendants, Department of Defense and Department of the Air Force - PDF
Brief Amicus Curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation and Center for Equal Opportunity in Support of Appellant and in Support of Reversal