Washington
How City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. applies in Washington: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law — Equal Protection.
Washington courts follow a similar stance as the Supreme Court of the United States regarding affirmative action and equal protection under the law. In cases involving racial classifications or preferences in public contracting, Washington applies strict scrutiny as articulated in Croson to ensure that such measures are necessary and narrowly tailored to address specific past discrimination.
In Washington, governmental entities must demonstrate a compelling interest in implementing affirmative action policies and must ensure that such measures are necessary for addressing identified disparities without being overly broad.
The Washington Supreme Court upheld the requirement for a showing of specific past discrimination to justify race-conscious contracting measures, following the strict scrutiny standard.
The court found that disparate impact alone is insufficient to justify affirmative action unless there is a history of specific discrimination.
This case reaffirmed that race-based classifications by the state must meet strict scrutiny, aligning with the Croson ruling on the necessity of compelling justification.
Washington's approach mirrors the federal standard set forth in Croson, maintaining that any racial classifications, even in state contracting, are subjected to strict scrutiny. However, Washington provides clarity by requiring thorough documentation of past discrimination to support any affirmative action policies.
Understanding the principles from Croson is essential for the Washington bar exam, particularly in evaluating equal protection challenges related to state contracting and affirmative action policies.