Case Summary
Issue:
Whether the use of racial preferences by the federal government violates the Equal Protection Component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
Plaintiff:
Dynalantic Corporation, a New York corporation
Defendant:
U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of the Navy, U.S. Department of the Army, and the Small Business Administration (SBA)
Amicus Curiae:
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
Case History
DynaLantic Corporation is a New York company formed in 1984 that designs and manufactures aircraft, submarine, ship, and other simulators and training devices, which it provides to the U.S. Department of Defense, particularly the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Army. Because it is a “small business,” its main competitors are companies that are entitled to a racial preference. In 1995, after DynaLantic lost a bid on a Navy helicopter simulator due to the racial preferences provided minority contractors, it sued. MSLF filed a brief in support of DynaLantic, however, its lawsuit was dismissed for lack of standing. Later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed. After cross-motions for summary judgment were filed, the Court requested that those amici that filed briefs in 1996 do so again. DynaLantic is represented by the Center for Individual Rights. On January 20, 2005, MSLF filed its friend of the court brief, to which the parties responded.
On August 23, 2007, the Court denied the summary judgment motions of both sides, stating that because it lacked information on the Congress’s 2006 reauthorization of the Small Business program it could not make a decision. It ordered the parties to brief the 2006 reauthorization.
On November 30, 2007, the parties completed additional briefing of Congress’s 2006 reauthorization of the Small Business progam. On October 23, 2009, the court ordered the parties to supplement the record to include pertinent materials considered by Congress subsequent to the reauthorization of 10 U.S.C. § 2323 on January 6, 2006.
On August 23, 2007, the district court issued a memorandum opinion and order denying, without prejudice, both motions for summary judgment, stating that the record before the court was insufficient to decide the motions because there was no information regarding Congress’s 2006 reauthorization of the program. The parties were directed to propose, by September 21, 2007, future proceedings to supplement the record fully, which they did.
On November 9, 2007, the SBA and DynaLantic filed supplemental briefs on the effect of the 2006 reauthorization of DOD’s racial preference programs. On November 30, 2007, the parties filed responses to those briefs. On November 5, 2008, DynaLantic filed a notice of supplemental authority, specifically, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Rothe Development Corp. v. Department of Defense. 545 F.3 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
On October 23, 2009, the district court ordered the parties to supplement the record to include pertinent materials considered by Congress subsequent to reauthorization of 10 U.S.C. § 2323. On December 4, 2009, the parties submitted a status report listing the additional materials and proposing a briefing schedule to address the effect of those materials on the remaining issues in the case. Thereafter, the parties filed supplemental briefs. A decision is pending.