Washington v. Davis

E94545

Fourteenth Amendment case United States Supreme Court case constitutional law case equal protection case

Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.

Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

Observed surface forms (1)

Surface form	Occurrences
Washington et al. v. Davis et al.	1

Statements (51)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Fourteenth Amendment case ⓘ United States Supreme Court case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ equal protection case ⓘ
appliesTo	federal government actions through the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause ⓘ
areaOfLaw	anti-discrimination law ⓘ civil rights law ⓘ
arguedDate	1976-01-12 ⓘ
challengedPolicy	use of a written personnel test (Test 21) for police officer applicants ⓘ
citation	426 U.S. 229 ⓘ
concurrenceBy	Justice John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Due Process Clause ⓘ surface form: Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment Equal Protection Clause ⓘ surface form: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1976-06-07 ⓘ
factualFinding	the written test disproportionately disqualified Black applicants compared to white applicants ⓘ
fullName	Washington v. Davis self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: Washington et al. v. Davis et al.
holding	A law or official act is not unconstitutional solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact. ⓘ Disparate impact alone does not trigger strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. ⓘ Proof of discriminatory purpose is required to establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. ⓘ
impactOnDoctrine	established that disparate impact alone does not violate equal protection without proof of discriminatory intent ⓘ
influenced	McCleskey v. Kemp ⓘ Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney ⓘ Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	Warren E. Burger ⓘ surface form: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Justice Harry A. Blackmun NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Potter Stewart NERFINISHED ⓘ Thurgood Marshall ⓘ surface form: Justice Thurgood Marshall Justice William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ
jurisdictionBasis	federal question jurisdiction ⓘ
legalIssue	Equal Protection Clause ⓘ surface form: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment discriminatory intent requirement ⓘ disparate impact and equal protection ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Justice Byron White NERFINISHED ⓘ
originatingJurisdiction	District of Columbia ⓘ
page	229 ⓘ
parties	Black applicants to the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department ⓘ Government of the District of Columbia ⓘ surface form: District of Columbia government officials
precedentFor	intent requirement in equal protection challenges to facially neutral laws ⓘ
relatedConcept	discriminatory purpose ⓘ disparate impact ⓘ facially neutral law with racially disparate effects ⓘ
reporter	United States Reports ⓘ
ruleOfLaw	Discriminatory purpose must be shown to prove racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. ⓘ Statistical racial disparities are relevant but not sufficient by themselves to prove unconstitutional discrimination. ⓘ
subjectMatter	employment testing for police officers ⓘ
subsequentCitationFrequency	frequently cited in equal protection jurisprudence ⓘ
volume	426 ⓘ
year	1976 ⓘ

Referenced by (5)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Equal Protection Clause → basisFor → Washington v. Davis ⓘ

Washington v. Davis → fullName → Washington v. Davis self-linksurface differs ⓘ

this entity surface form: Washington et al. v. Davis et al.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. → relatedCase → Washington v. Davis ⓘ

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. → relatedCase → Washington v. Davis ⓘ

Yick Wo v. Hopkins → subsequentCitationBy → Washington v. Davis ⓘ