United States: D.C. Circuit Rules That The 8(a) Program Is Constitutional, But Its Reasoning Raises Questions

David Black and Joseph Hornyak are Partners in Holland & Knight's Tysons office

On September 9, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued a split decision holding that § 8(a) of the Small Business Act does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Rothe Development, Inc. v. Department of Defense, No. 15-5176.  Although the Court's decision comes as welcome news to participants in SBA's 8(a) Business Development program, the Court's rationale raises new questions.  In its defense of § 8(a) against constitutional attack, the Court adopted an interpretation of the statute that may expose SBA's regulatory presumption that members of certain groups are "socially disadvantaged" to legal uncertainty.  It also remains to be seen whether the U.S. Supreme Court takes an interest in this case after a 20-year hiatus from reviewing race-based preferences in public procurement. 

Summary of the Decision

In the lower court proceeding, the District Court, SBA, and Rothe Development had unanimously agreed that the statutory definition of "socially disadvantaged individuals" at 15 U.S.C. § 637(a)(5) was subject to heightened "strict scrutiny" review under the Equal Protection Clause because the statute expressed a clear racial classification.  The District Court upheld the constitutionality of § 8(a) in 2015 after concluding that the statute satisfied the legal standard for "strict scrutiny" – i.e., it was narrowly tailored to achieve an established compelling government interest.  Observes expected that the primary issue on appeal would be whether the District Court's "strict scrutiny" analysis would pass constitutional muster at the D.C. Circuit.

The D.C. Circuit took an alternate and surprising path to affirming the District Court's judgment.  The D.C. Circuit held that § 8(a) was subject only to the lesser (and easier to satisfy) "rational basis" constitutional review.  The Court reached this conclusion because it reasoned that the statute's definition of "socially disadvantaged individuals" did not contain a racial classification.  This definition states that socially disadvantaged individuals are "those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identity as a member of a group without regard to their individual qualities."  15 U.S.C. § 637(a)(5) (emphasis added).  Relying on the italicized clause and the legislative history of the Small Business Act, the D.C. Circuit found that Congress clearly intended to require proof of individual suffering of racial or ethnic prejudice rather than establishing a presumption of social disadvantage by mere membership in a minority group:

[The statutory definition of "socially disadvantaged individuals"] speaks of individual victims of discrimination.  On its face, section 637(a)(5) envisions an individual-based approach that focuses on experience rather than on a group characteristic. . . . [T]his is not a provision in which "the race, not the person dictates the category."

The D.C. Court then took great care to explain that Congress did "not create a presumption that a member of a particular racial or ethnic group is necessarily socially disadvantaged, nor that a white person is not."  Although Congress made "findings" that certain racial and ethnic groups were socially disadvantaged, the Court noted that these findings were merely in the preamble to § 8(a) (at 15 U.S.C. § 631(f)), which is not an "operative part of the statute."  The Court also analyzed the legislative history of the 8(a) Program and found that "Congress affirmatively chose to jettison an express racial presumption that appeared in an earlier version of the bill."  Significantly, relying on its "duty" to avoid a statutory interpretation that could create a constitutional issue, the D.C. Circuit held that 15 U.S.C. § 637(a)(5) will not be interpreted as authorizing SBA to employ group-based presumptions to determine who qualifies as a "socially disadvantaged individual:"

As we read the statute, it neither contains any racial classification nor mandates the SBA to employ one.  Even if the statute could be read to permit the [SBA] to use a racial presumption, the canon of constitutional avoidance directs that we not construe the statute in a manner that renders it vulnerable to constitutional challenge on that ground.

Because it concluded that, on its face, § 8(a) lacks any racial classification triggering "strict scrutiny," the D.C. Circuit declined to review the District Court's analysis under this heightened standard.  Instead, the D.C. Circuit conducted a "rational basis" review, which the statute comfortably passed.  In a mere two paragraphs of a 28-page decision, the Court quickly explained that the statute "bears a rational relation to some legitimate end" – aiming to "remedy the effects of prejudice and bias that impede business formation and development and suppress fair competition for government contracts."

Rothe is not the only decision addressing the constitutionality of the 8(a) Program or the underlying statute.  In 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that section 8(a) is generally constitutional on its face but not "as applied" to contracts for military simulation and training.  DynaLantic Corp. v. U.S. Department of Defense, No. 95-2301 (Aug. 15, 2012).  Read our blog on the DynaLantic case.

DynaLantic appealed the District Court's ruling regarding on the constitutionality of the program as a whole.  In March of 2014, while that appeal was pending, the parties agreed to a settlement pursuant to which the Department of Defense issued class deviation to the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) prohibiting contracting officers from using the 8(a) program for contracts for military simulation and training.  See DFARS 219.803 (DOD Class Deviation 2014-O0007).


The D.C. Circuit's decision is as significant for the issues it left unanswered as for those it decided.  In its effort to save the statute from a "strict scrutiny" review, the Court may have invited new challenges to the legality of SBA's regulations implementing the 8(a) Program.  SBA's regulations establish a "rebuttable presumption" that individuals are socially disadvantaged if they are members of the following racial and ethnic groups:  (1) Black Americans; (2) Hispanic Americans; (3) Native Americans; (4) Asian Pacific Americans; and (5) Subcontinent Asian Americans.  13 C.F.R. § 124.103(b)(1).  For individuals who are members of these groups, there is no requirement to present evidence of individual social disadvantage and no case-by-case review by SBA.  The D.C. Circuit noted the issue of whether SBA's presumption of social disadvantage for these five groups might be contrary to the statutory language of § 8(a) and on shaky constitutional ground.  But the Court declined to address the question:

In contrast to the statute, the SBA's regulation implementing the 8(a) program does contain a racial classification in the form of a presumption that an individual who is a member of one of five designated racial groups (and within them, 37 subgroups) is socially disadvantaged.  See 13 C.F.R. § 124.103(b).  This case does not permit us to decide whether the race-based regulatory presumption is constitutionally sound, for Rothe has elected to challenge only the statute.

(Emphasis added.)  The D.C. Circuit's observation that SBA's regulations are "in contrast to the statute" may encourage future challenges regarding whether SBA's regulatory presumptions at § 124.103(b) survive review under the Administrative Procedure Act as well as the Equal Protection Clause.  Even without the regulatory presumptions, the remainder of SBA's regulations may still be valid and workable, as 13 C.F.R. § 124.103(c) sets forth the procedure for the kind of "case-by-case" review of "evidence" of individual social disadvantage favored by the D.C. Circuit.  The legal bar might be set higher, but many applicants would likely still be able to establish individual social disadvantage by a preponderance of the evidence.

In addition, the D.C. Circuit's opinion features a heated battle between the majority (Judges Pillard and Griffith) and the dissent (Judge Henderson).  The two opinions offer a fascinating duel over the legislative history of § 8(a) in 1978 (when Congress seemed to back away from creating any group-based presumptions of social disadvantage) and in 1980 (when Congress amended the statute and seemed to acknowledge that it had intended to create such group-based presumptions all along).  Each opinion is well researched and well crafted (and make for enjoyable reading).  Both the constitutionality of § 8(a) and the legality of SBA's implementing regulation may turn on the resolution of this question. 

One must wonder whether this will be the last word on this case.  The Supreme Court has not weighed in on the constitutionality of affirmative action preferences in government contracting since Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), more than twenty years ago.  Last term, the Supreme Court applied the "strict scrutiny" standard to the consideration of race and ethnicity in college admissions in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. ___ (2016).  It may be tempted to address the D.C. Circuit's attempt to skirt "strict scrutiny" review of the 8(a) Program by resorting to clever statutory interpretation.  Also, contractors shut out of 8(a) set-aside procurements may be tempted to challenge the use of the 8(a) Program for particular types of contracts, as in DynaLantic.

The High Court also demonstrated a rarely shown interest in procurement law in its last term by addressing the statutory "rule of two" set-aside preference for contracts that can be performed by veteran-owned small businesses in Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 579 U.S. ___ (2016).  (Its holding that orders placed under the Federal Supply Schedule Program are "contracts" for the purposes of small business set-aside statutes raises interesting questions about the applicability of other small business preference programs to the GSA Schedules.)  When the High Court receives the anticipated cert petition regarding the Rothe Development case, perhaps it will be unable to resist the chance to address the intersection of the Equal Protection Clause and public procurement in 2017.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions