In the 1995 case of James Griffin Lane v. Federico F. Pena, Secretary of Transportation et al., Lane challenged the constitutionality of a federal program that provided financial incentives for airport operators to award contracts to businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, including women and racial minorities. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pena, upholding the program's constitutionality under strict scrutiny review standards applied to race-conscious government programs. Lane argued that he was unfairly denied an airport concession contract due to his race (white) and gender (male). However, the court found that Congress had substantial evidence showing discrimination against minority- and women-owned businesses in airport contracting nationwide when it enacted this legislation. The decision affirmed that while such affirmative action programs must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest - here remedying past discrimination - they are not inherently unconstitutional.

In the dissenting opinion for James Griffin Lane v. Federico F. Pena, Secretary of Transportation et al., Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding standing in lawsuits against federal agencies. He contended that the plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient injury to have standing, as required by Article III of the Constitution. The alleged harm - potential exposure to increased competition - was speculative and indirect, according to Scalia; it did not meet the standard set by previous cases requiring an "injury in fact." Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that Congress could create new legal rights or expand existing ones through legislation like Section 16 of Airport and Airway Improvement Act (AAIA). In his view, this interpretation undermined constitutional limits on judicial power and allowed Congress too much discretion over who can sue federal agencies.