What was one result of Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena? Some programs that promoted equal opportunity and affirmative action
faced cutbacks due to the Court's ruling.
Programs that provided incentives for hiring minority-owned business
were legal and could not be challenged.
Programs related to equal opportunity and affirmative action were
unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Contractors that felt women could not do the job could refuse to award
subcontracts to companies owned by women.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1995. The Supreme Court held that racial classifications imposed by the federal government must be analyzed under a standard of strict scrutiny and that race is not a sufficient condition for a presumption of disadvantage.

well this isn't a question but if you are asking if it is true or false it is, true.

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.