Fullilove v. Klutznick
1980 United States Supreme Court case
Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Congress could constitutionally use its spending power to remedy the effects of past discrimination. The case arose as a suit against the enforcement of provisions in a 1977 spending bill that required 10% of federal funds going towards public works programs to go to minority-owned companies.
Chief Justice Burger's decision to allow "benign" (as opposed to "invidious") racial classifications under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment was controversial. The Marshall plurality argued to uphold the program under an equal protection analysis by applying intermediate scrutiny to benign racial classifications. The Court generally rejected arguments that benign racial classifications stigmatize the minority beneficiaries, burden non-beneficiaries and are overinclusive of minority individuals who may not be in need of a remedy for past discrimination.
Fullilove was overruled in part by Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña.
Opinion of the Court
The Court was deeply divided as to both the rationale for the decision and the outcome.
The public source identifies “Fullilove v. Klutznick” as 1980 United States Supreme Court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Fullilove, Klutznick and United.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Fullilove v. Klutznick”, the useful work is to connect “1980 United States Supreme Court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5508314. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1980 and 1977.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Fullilove v. Klutznick”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Fullilove v. Klutznick primary sources, Fullilove v. Klutznick archive and Fullilove research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Fullilove v. Klutznick”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Fullilove v. Klutznick” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.