The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
Nuziard et al v. Minority Business Development Agency et al
Overview
Plaintiffs challenged the Minority Business Development Agency’s eligibility criteria for supporting businesses. They argue that the agency's decision-making process relies on a codified list of preferred races and ethnicities and explicitly aims to help only minority-owned businesses.
Details
Defendants argued that Plaintiffs in this case did not have standing—either because they would not have qualified regardless of whether race or ethnicity had been a factor, or because they were not actually "ready and able" to apply at the time that they filed the complaint. Defendants also argued that the eligibility criteria were constitutional because the government had a compelling interest in "remedying the effects of past discrimination" that they at least passively participated in.
On March 5, 2024, the court decided in favor of Plaintiffs on their Equal Protection Clause claim. The court ruled that the agency can no longer use racial or ethnic classifications in determining whether businesses can receive Business Center programming.
Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District Of Texas
Status
Filed March 20, 2023 | Decided
Relevant Law
Equal Protection Clause