# United States v. Weber *Supreme Court decision (1979) upholding voluntary affirmative-action plans under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; cited in the Minnesota record.* *United States v. Weber*, cited in the record as *United Steelworkers v. Weber*, 443 U.S. 193 (1979), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was handed down on June 27, 1979, in Washington, D.C. By a 5–2 vote, the Court upheld voluntary [[Affirmative action|affirmative-action]] plans under [[Title VII]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].[^1] Both opinions relied on the same 1964 Senate floor record. Justice Brennan's majority quoted Senator Hubert Humphrey, the bill's Senate floor manager, on the purpose of the title.[^2] Justice Rehnquist's dissent quoted Humphrey's assurances on the same record that the title would not require quotas or preferential treatment.[^3] In the [[Minnesota]] record, the project's validated claim:link catalogue lists *Weber* as the second controlling Supreme Court precedent under three legal theories.[^4] On January 14, 2026, the United States filed *[[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]]* in the District of Minnesota. The complaint alleges that Minn. Stat. [[§43A.191]] violates Title VII.[^5][^6] ## Who - **Majority:** Justice Brennan wrote the opinion for the Court.[^2] - **Dissent:** Justice Rehnquist wrote in dissent.[^3] - **Quoted legislator:** Senator Hubert Humphrey's 1964 floor remarks, as entered in volume 110 of the *Congressional Record*, were quoted in both opinions.[^2][^3] ## What The Court upheld voluntary affirmative-action plans by a 5–2 vote.[^1] The majority opinion, at 443 U.S. 204, quoted Humphrey's statement that "The crux of the problem [was] to open employment opportunities for Negroes in occupations which have been traditionally closed to them" (110 Cong. Rec. 6548).[^2] The majority relied on this statement of purpose in permitting voluntary race-conscious affirmative action.[^2] The dissent, at 443 U.S. 229–232, quoted Humphrey's statements on the text of the title.[^3] Each was entered in the Senate's record in 1964: - "The truth is that this title forbids discriminating against anyone on account of race. This is the simple and complete truth about title VII." (110 Cong. Rec. 6549, quoted at 443 U.S. 231).[^3] - "there is nothing in it that will give any power to the Commission or to any court to require hiring, firing, or promotion of employees in order to meet a racial 'quota' or to achieve a certain racial balance." (110 Cong. Rec. 6549, quoted at 443 U.S. 231).[^3] - The bill "provides that race shall not be a basis for making personnel decisions." (110 Cong. Rec. 6553, quoted at 443 U.S. 232).[^3] - "Nothing in the bill would permit any official or court to require any employer or labor union to give preferential treatment to any minority group." (110 Cong. Rec. 5423, quoted at 443 U.S. 229–230).[^3] The record identifies §703(j) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(j), as the statutory codification of these assurances.[^3] The subsection provides that "Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require" any employer to grant "preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance".[^3] The record shows that the floor manager's 1964 statements were quoted in support of both the 1979 holding and the dissent from it. It does not establish why the majority and the dissent weighed that record differently.[^2][^3] ## When - **1964:** Humphrey's floor remarks on Title VII were entered in the *Congressional Record*.[^3] - **June 27, 1979:** The Court decided *Weber*, fifteen years after those remarks.[^1][^3] - **January 14, 2026:** The United States filed *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn.).[^5][^6] ## Where The case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, D.C.[^1] ## In the at-issue record The project's at-issue record carries one pair for this subject.[^7] It records that in *Weber* the majority quoted Humphrey to permit race-conscious hiring, while the dissent quoted Humphrey to forbid it. Both sides drew on the same floor manager and the same *Congressional Record*.[^2][^3] The record pairs that split with a presidential action posted by the White House in April 2025, *Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy*.[^7] The record states that the order resolves the question on which the Court divided.[^7] ## In the Minnesota record ### What The project's validated claim:link catalogue lists *United Steelworkers v. Weber*, 443 U.S. 193 (1979), as the second controlling Supreme Court precedent under three theories:[^4] - Title VII disparate treatment (claim 28); - Fourteenth Amendment equal protection (claim 46); - 42 U.S.C. §1981 (claim 56). The United States' complaint in *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273, alleges that Minn. Stat. §43A.191 violates Title VII.[^5] Title VII is the title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Humphrey managed on the Senate floor and whose quota disclaimers the *Weber* dissent quoted.[^3][^5] The record dated September 2, 2026, describes the action as ongoing; the docket is maintained by the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.[^6] ### When The complaint was filed on January 14, 2026, forty-seven years after *Weber* was decided.[^1][^5] ## Notes [^1]: Supreme Court of the United States, *United Steelworkers v. Weber*, 443 U.S. 193 (June 27, 1979) — decision date and place; upholds voluntary affirmative-action plans, 5–2. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/443/193/ [^2]: Supreme Court of the United States, *United Steelworkers v. Weber*, 443 U.S. 193, 204 (1979) (Brennan, J., for the Court) — majority quoting 110 Cong. Rec. 6548 (Humphrey). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/443/193/ [^3]: Supreme Court of the United States, *United Steelworkers v. Weber*, 443 U.S. 193, 229–232 (1979) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) — dissent quoting 110 Cong. Rec. 5423, 6549, 6553 (Humphrey) and discussing §703(j). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/443/193 [^4]: Supreme Court of the United States, *United Steelworkers v. Weber*, 443 U.S. 193 (1979) — opinion listed in the project's validated claim:link catalogue (claims 28, 46, 56) as second controlling precedent. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/443/193/ [^5]: United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, *Complaint, United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn., filed Jan. 14, 2026) — complaint alleging Minn. Stat. §43A.191 violates Title VII. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^6]: Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn.) — case docket. https://clearinghouse.net/case/47712/ [^7]: The White House, *Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy* (April 2025) — presidential action paired with *Weber* in the at-issue record. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy