time. Mountain States Legal Foundation represented Adarand Constructors. The questions before the Court was primarily whether the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, as well as the consequent allocation of favored treatment, was a discriminatory practice that violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment. Opinion Majority In a 5–4 decision, Justice O'Connor wrote for the majority joined in full only by Justice Kennedy while Justice Rehnquist, Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia also joined in part. Justice O'Connor found that while reviewing the process of "reverse incorporation", there is congruency between the 5th and 14th amendment. Justice O'Connor held that regardless of the motive, strict scrutiny analysis applied to all race-based classification for both the State and Federal governments. The court specifically noted that Metro Broadcasting departed from prior cases by holding "benign" racial classifications need only satisfy intermediate scrutiny, which goes against the congruency of the 5th and 14th amendment. Dissent Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer, dissented from the majority regarding the congruency between the 5th and 14th amendment. Justice Stevens argues that the concept of congruence "ignores important protected and legal differences federal state and local decision makers...a rule of 'congruence' that ignores a 'purposeful incongruity' so fundamental to our system of government is unacceptable." Subsequent developments On September 5, 2005, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report finding that, ten years after the Adarand decision, federal agencies still largely fail to comply with the rule in Adarand. Specifically, the Commission found that the Departments of Defense, Transportation, United States Department of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, State, and the Small Business Administration, do not seriously consider race-neutral alternatives before implementing race-conscious federal procurement programs. The Commission found that such consideration is required by the strict scrutiny standard under Adarand and Court decisions. Commissioner Michael Yaki dissented from the commission's report, arguing that the commission was taking a "radical step backwards" from the "race-progressive policies" of the past. References External links Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña Case Brief at Lawnix.com United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court United States affirmative action case law 1995 in United States case law United States due process case law United States racial discrimination