Opinion ID: 209534
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Before Congress”

Text: Rothe next argues that the district court was wrong to rely on the six disparity studies because “[t]here is no proof [the studies] were ever ‘before’ Congress,” or that they were ever “subject to any kind of analysis, hearing, or findings.” Rothe Br. at 27. In Rothe V, we explained that for evidence to be relevant in the strict scrutiny analysis, it “must be proven to have been before Congress prior to enactment of the racial classification.” 413 F.3d at 1338. It would be error for the district court to rely on studies without “a finding that [they] were put before Congress prior to the date of the present reauthorization in relation to section 1207 and to ground its enactment.” Id. Taking note of our holding, the district court found in Rothe VI that “[a]lthough the full text of these six disparity studies was not printed in the Congressional Record, . . . the repeated reference to these studies in Congressional hearings and floor debates indicates that these studies were before Congress.” 499 F. Supp. 2d at 839 n.83. The district court cited floor speeches by Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative Cynthia McKinney, in which these members of Congress referred to the six disparity studies by title, author, and date. See id. at 835-38. 10 Beyond these floor speeches, however, the district court did not identify any further references to the studies in Congressional proceedings—in particular, the court did not identify a single hearing at which the studies were named or discussed. On appeal, DOD does not identify any hearings to which the district court might have been referring, and Rothe contends—apparently 10 For example, Senator Kennedy stated in a floor speech on November 10, 2005, that “[y]ears of Congressional hearings have shown that minorities historically have been excluded from both public and private construction contracts in general,” and later stated that “[such] problems are detailed in many recent disparity studies, including [the six studies at issue here].” 151 Cong. Rec. S12668-01, 2005 WL 3018127 (Nov. 10, 2005). 2008-1017 26 uncontroverted by DOD—that these six studies were not in fact discussed at any Congressional hearings. Audio Recording of Oral Arg., available at http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/mp3/2008-1017.mp3, at 10:30-11:00. Although we are mindful that Congress has broad discretion to regulate its internal proceedings, see Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees v. United States, 330 F.3d 513, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2003), we are hesitant to conclude that the mere mention of a statistical study in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives or the Senate is sufficient to put the study “before Congress” for purposes of Congress’ obligation to amass a “strong basis in evidence” for race-conscious action. We recognize that there is no dispute that these six studies were completed prior to the 2006 reenactment of Section 1207, and in that sense they were indeed “before” the acting legislature. But beyond their mere mention, there is no indication that these studies were debated or reviewed by members of Congress or by any witnesses. Cf. Sherbrooke Turf, 345 F.3d at 969-70 (relying on the Appendix, itself “a Department of Justice summary of more than fifty documents and thirty congressional hearings on minority-owned businesses prepared in response to the Adarand decision” (emphasis added)). And because Congress made no findings concerning these studies, we cannot even broach the question of whether to defer to Congress in any respect regarding them. 11 Cf. Croson, 488 U.S. at 500 (“The factfinding process of legislative bodies is generally entitled to a presumption of regularity and deferential review by the judiciary. . . . But when a 11 Findings regarding the disparity studies, however, are to be distinguished from formal findings of discrimination by DOD, which Congress was emphatically not required to make. See Dean v. City of Shreveport, 438 F.3d 448, 455 (5th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he government need not incriminate itself with a formal finding of discrimination prior to using a race-conscious remedy.”). 2008-1017 27 legislative body chooses to employ a suspect classification, it cannot rest upon a generalized assertion as to the classification’s relevance to its goals.”). Ultimately, however, we need not decide whether these six studies were put before Congress, because we will hold in any event that the studies do not provide a substantially probative and broad-based statistical foundation necessary for the “strong basis in evidence” that must be the predicate for nationwide, race-conscious action.