An independent municipal water district adopts a rule setting aside 25% of all staff hires and 25% of contracts for members of racial minority groups to address historical discrimination. The district's stated purpose is to remedy general societal discrimination rather than district-specific wrongs. What is the proper constitutional assessment?

• A. The set-asides are permissible because they address historical discrimination.
• B. The right to contract is unaffected by such set-asides.
• C. The set-asides constitute unconstitutional racial classifications because they fail strict scrutiny.
• D. The government may pursue race-based remedies in this context.

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that when the government uses racial classifications in public hiring or contracting, it must meet strict scrutiny: the measure must serve a compelling interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, with evidence that the action remedies discrimination that is specific to the jurisdiction.

Here, the district tries to remedy general societal discrimination rather than discrimination tied to the district’s own hiring and contracting history. A blanket 25% set-aside for staffing and contracting, aimed at all minorities, is not shown to address the district’s particular past wrongs or to be tailored to the specific barriers minorities face in the district’s own market. Because the plan relies on race as a primary factor and uses a rigid quota without demonstrating a close causal link to the district’s own discrimination, it does not pass strict scrutiny. Therefore such race-based set-asides are unconstitutional.

In other words, race-based remedies are allowed only if there is a strong, targeted record showing local discrimination and the policy is narrowly tailored to remedy that specific wrong; broad efforts to address societal discrimination do not suffice.