The U.S. Supreme Court case Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al., 1989 revolved around the constitutionality of two policies adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to enhance broadcasting diversity. The FCC had given preferential treatment to minority-owned businesses in granting licenses and encouraged distress sales (selling stations prior to license renewal) only to minority-controlled firms. Metro Broadcasting claimed these policies violated their equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld both policies as constitutional, ruling that they served important governmental objectives and were substantially related to achieving those objectives without violating any individual’s constitutional rights. The majority opinion stated that Congress has significant latitude in formulating remedies for past discrimination and can use race-conscious measures where there is evidence of identified discrimination affecting an industry or sector. This case marked a departure from previous decisions requiring strict scrutiny for racial classifications; instead applying intermediate scrutiny because it involved congressionally mandated benign racial classifications designed not as punishment but rather remedial actions against societal discrimination.

In the dissenting opinion of Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al., 1989, Justice O'Connor argued that all racial classifications imposed by government must be analyzed under a standard of strict scrutiny and not intermediate scrutiny as the majority suggested. She believed that this case was about whether or not to treat people differently based on their race, which she considered an inherently suspect business for any part of government to engage in. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority's view that benign race-based distinctions should be treated differently from invidious ones under equal protection analysis because it would lead to uncertainty and perpetuate stereotypes about certain races being disadvantaged or needing special treatment. She also criticized FCC's minority ownership policies as they were not narrowly tailored enough to serve a compelling state interest and thus failed even if subjected only to intermediate scrutiny.