Dynalantic Corp. v. United States Department of Defense
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114807
D.D.C.2012Background
- DynaLantic sues DoD, Navy, and SBA challenging Section 8(a) as unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the military simulation industry.
- DoD previously operated under DoD Program and Section 8(a); after Rothe VII, record was supplemented with post-2006 Congressional materials.
- Court repeatedly reopened the record to assess evidence before and after 2006 reauthorization regarding the program’s compelling interest.
- Court holds Section 8(a) facially constitutional but finds the program, as applied to military simulators, fails strict scrutiny due to lack of industry-specific discrimination evidence.
- Court grants in part and denies in part cross-motions; enjoins DoD/SBA from 8(a) awards for military simulators absent a strong basis in evidence.
- DoD’s 8(a) participation remains, but the injunction targets only procurements for military simulators under the 8(a) program.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial validity under strict scrutiny | DynaLantic argues 8(a) violates equal protection nationwide. | Defendants contend strong basis in evidence supports nationwide remedial action. | Section 8(a) facially constitutional. |
| As-applied validity in military simulation industry | Dynalantic asserts no discrimination evidence in the industry, undermining fit. | Defendants argue industry-specific evidence unnecessary for nationwide remedial action. | Dynalantic succeeds; 8(a) as applied to military simulators violates strict scrutiny. |
| Strong basis in evidence and compelling interest | Evidence before Congress is insufficient to justify race-conscious action. | Congress had ample evidence of discrimination and lingering effects warranting remedial action. | Court finds strong basis in evidence supporting compelling interest; however as-applied limitations prevail. |
| Narrow tailoring and relief scope | Program is over-/under-inclusive and lacks adequate waivers for non-participants. | Program includes rebuttable presumptions and individual economic disadv. determinations; waiver provisions exist. | Court declines full narrow-tailoring analysis given as-applied ruling; ultimately enjoins only 8(a) military-sim contracts. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1989) (requires industry-specific evidence of discrimination for strict scrutiny)
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1995) (strict scrutiny applied to race-conscious remedial programs)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (no-set-of-circumstances test for facial challenges)
- Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1980) (abundant evidence supports remedial race-conscious measures in construction)
- Rothe Dev. Corp. v. Dep’t of Def., 545 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (post-2006 evidence considered on DoD Program; facial validity discussed)