Opinion ID: 209534
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Geographic Coverage

Text: In Rothe III, we explained that, although Section 1207 is subject to scrutiny that is no less strict than the scrutiny applied to the race-based policies of municipalities, Congress nevertheless has, in a sense, a “‘broader brush’ than municipalities for remedying discrimination,” because Congress has the power to legislate for the entire nation. 262 F.3d at 1329. In particular, we wrote that “[w]hereas municipalities must necessarily identify discrimination in the immediate locality to justify a race-based program, we do not think that Congress needs to have had evidence before it of discrimination in all fifty states in order to justify the 1207 program.” Id.; see also Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147, 1165 (10th Cir. 2000) (“Adarand 14 But see Concrete Works of Colo., Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 540 U.S. 1027, 1032 (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of cert.) (“The Tenth Circuit accepted the city’s contention that . . . MBEs . . . ‘are generally smaller and less experienced because of industry discrimination.’ The argument fails because it rests on nothing but speculation.” (internal citation omitted)). 2008-1017 37 VII”) (“The fact that Congress’s enactments must serve a compelling interest does not necessitate the conclusion that the scope of that interest must be as geographically limited as that of a local government.”). However, we were clear that “evidence of a few isolated instances of discrimination would be insufficient to uphold the nationwide program,” and we left to the district court the question of “[w]here to draw the line . . . in the first instance.” Rothe III, 262 F.3d at 1330. The district court has now drawn a line, holding that “[t]hese six state and local disparity studies analyze evidence of discrimination from a diverse cross-section of jurisdictions across the United States, and they constitute prima facie evidence of a nation-wide pattern or practice of discrimination in public and private contracting.” Rothe VI, 499 F. Supp. 2d at 838-39 (footnote omitted). It is now up to us to review this holding, and we cannot affirm it. We take judicial notice that the United States comprises over three thousand counties and county-equivalent regions, 15 and, as of July 1, 2007, there are at least two hundred cities or metropolitan areas with populations above 200,000 people. 16 It may be reasonable to assume that there are some demographic and industrial similarities between many of the larger cities and counties across the country. And we still think that Congress need not amass evidence of discrimination in all fifty states to meet its burden. But we would be hesitant to conclude even from methodologically unimpeachable disparity studies of one state, two counties, 15 See, e.g., United States Geological Survey, Frequently Asked Questions, “How many counties are there in the United States?” available at http://www.usgs.gov/faq/list_faq_by_category/get_answer.asp?id=785 (last visited September 28, 2008). 16 See United States Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Population for Incorporated Places Over 100,000, Ranked by July 1, 2007 Population: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007, available at http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST200701.csv (last visited September 28, 2008). 2008-1017 38 and three cities that there is a “nation-wide pattern or practice of discrimination in public and private contracting,” where the discrimination is on the same order as the local discrimination that might be inferred from the six studies. Here, given the weaknesses in the six studies’ benchmark analyses as described above, we simply cannot agree with the district court’s conclusion. We stress that in holding these six studies insufficient in this case, we do not necessarily disapprove of decisions by other circuit courts that have relied, directly or indirectly, on municipal disparity studies to establish a federal compelling interest. Different studies, in the context of different legislative history, may support different conclusions. In particular, the Appendix, relied on by the Ninth and Tenth Circuits in the context of certain race-conscious measures pertaining to federal highway construction, references the Urban Institute Report, which itself analyzed over fifty disparity studies and relied for its conclusions on over thirty of those studies, a far broader basis than the six studies here provide. See Adarand VII, 228 F.3d at 1172-73; W. States Paving Co., 407 F.3d at 992-93; Urban Institute Report, supra note 5, at 9. 17