Mountain States Legal Foundation Logo

Active Cases

All Cases

Case Locations (click on the blue States to view the case list)

Alaska California Idaho Nevada Montana Wyoming Utah Arizona Colorado New Mexico Texas Michigan New York Washington, D.C. Pennsylvania Arkansas North Dakota Ohio Oregon South Dakota Minnesota Wisconsin North Carolina Louisiana Maryland

Mountain West Holding Company, Inc. v. State of Montana

Why We Fight:

After MSLF’s landmark victory in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v Peña, no government—federal, state or local—should be awarding contracts based on race.


The U.S. Department of Transportation requires Montana to award highway construction contracts to “disadvantaged business enterprises” but defines such business solely based on race. 

Legal Question:

Whether a state government can reject a low contract bid because that contractor is not a racial minority?


Mountain West Holding Co., Inc.


State of Montana; the Montana Department of Transportation; Mike Tooley, Director of the Montana Department of Transportation

Amici Curiae:

Mountain States Legal Foundation


U.S. District Court for the District of Montana

Proceedings before the Montana federal court

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulations require that any state receiving federal highway funds must have a federally-approved Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program.  DBE programs are purportedly designed to ensure non-discrimination in public contracting and to promote the use of DBEs in federally assisted contracts.  A DBE is a small business “owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.”  State DBE programs “must rebuttably presume that citizens of the [USA] (or lawfully admitted permanent residents) who are women, Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, Subcontinent Asian Americans, or other minorities found to be disadvantaged by the SBA, are socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.”  States must establish an “overall goal” for DBE participation in federally assisted contracts.  The overall goal is based on the availability of “ready, willing and able to participate” DBEs compared to all businesses ready, willing, and able to complete contracts.  After determining a “base level” of eligible DBEs, the state must determine what percentage of all Federal-aid highway funds the state receives will go to DBEs in the forthcoming three fiscal years.  Overall goals “must provide for participation by all certified DBEs and must not be subdivided into group-specific goals.”  If a state establishes or implements its goals in a way different from that provided in the regulations, it is ineligible to receive USDOT funds. 

In 2012, Mountain West Holding Company, a Montana firm that does construction specific traffic planning for projects submitted the low bid on three separate contracts; all three were rejected because of the owner’s race given Montana’s 5.83% racial quota.  In response to an equal protection challenge filed by the Montana company, a Montana federal district court upheld the program’s constitutionality in November of 2014.   Mountain West timely appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On May 4, 2015, Mountain West filed its opening brief.  On May 8, 2015, MSLF filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Mountain West.  On June 8, 2015 the Montana Department of Transportation (DOT) filed its opening brief and a motion to dismiss.  On July 7, 2015, Mountain West filed its reply brief and response to Montana DOT’s motion to dismiss.  On July 31, 2015, the Montana DOT filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss brief.  Oral argument was held on March 10, 2017.  On May 16, 2017, citing to MSLF’s victory in Adarand, the Ninth Circuit panel held that summary judgment in favor of Montana was improper in light of factual disputes regarding the so-called expert report and because the evidence relied on by the federal district court, specifically a decrease in the number of minority business and anecdotal evidence regarding a “good old boy’s network,” failed to prove a history of discrimination.  Based upon this ruling, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings.  In October of 2017, before the Montana federal district court, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 


No Status Updates
  • Western Legal Foundation Praises Ruling in Racial Preference Case

    May 16, 2017
    May 16, 2017 – DENVER, CO. A western legal foundation with decades of experience and multiple appearances at the Supreme Court of the United States challenging the use of racial preferences or quotas today celebrated the decision of a federal appeals court that overturned the ruling of a Montana federal district court upholding the use of racial preferences in highway contracting.
  • Western Legal Foundation Urges End to Racial Preferences

    May 8, 2015
    A western legal foundation with decades of experience and multiple appearances at the Supreme Court of the United States challenging the use of racial preferences or quotas urged a federal appeals court to reject their use in federal highway contracting.

Help protect constitutional liberties and private property rights, and promote limited and ethical government and the free enterprise system:

Donate Here