Update on PLF's lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of AB 21
Author: Joshua Thompson
Last October Pacific Legal Foundation filed a writ of mandate directly in the court appeal challenging the constitutionality of Assembly Bill 21 (AB 21). AB 21 requires the state to grant race and sex based preferences for a number of different public building contracts. What makes this case so remarkable is that AB 21 reauthorized a number of statutes that had previously been rendered unconstitutional under Proposition 209. Indeed, two court orders and an executive order from the governor had required the state to discontinue the discriminatory statutes. Nevertheless, the legislature went ahead and reauthorized those very provisions.
While the court of appeal rejected that original writ petition, PLF refiled the case in the Sacramento Superior Court. The hearing date for the writ petition in the trial court is now a month away. PLF attorneys are representing American Civil Rights Foundation and Ward Connerly. Mr. Connerly was the successful petitioner in Connerly v. State Personnel Bd., one of the cases which had declared the statutes unconstitutional. As the hearing date approaches, I will keep you apprised of any developments.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›