Assoc. Gen. Contractors v. Cal. Dept. of Transp., No. 11-16228 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseAGC sought declaratory and injunctive relief against Caltrans and its officers, on the grounds that Caltrans' 2009 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program unconstitutionally provided race- and sex-based preferences to certain groups. On appeal, AGC challenged the district court's adverse summary judgment rulings. The district court held that Caltrans' substantial statistical and anecdotal evidence provided a strong basis in evidence of discrimination against the four named groups, and that the program was narrowly tailored to benefit only those groups. The court dismissed AGC's appeal because AGC did not identify any of its members who have suffered or will suffer harm as a result of Caltrans' program, and therefore AGC had not established that it had associational standing to bring suit.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel dismissed an appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which plaintiffs, Associated General Contractors of America, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and its officers, on the grounds that Caltrans’ 2009 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program unconstitutionally provided race- and sex- based preferences to African American-, Native American-, Asian-Pacific American-, and women-owned firms on certain transportation contracts. The panel held that AGC did not identify any of its members who have suffered or will suffer harm as a result of Caltrans’ affirmative action program, and therefore AGC had not established that it has associational standing to bring suit. The panel further held that even if AGC could establish standing, its appeal would fail. The panel held that Caltrans’ program survived strict scrutiny by (1) having a strong basis in evidence of discrimination within the California transportation contracting industry; and (2) being narrowly tailored to benefit only those groups that have actually suffered discrimination.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.