Constitutional Law

Washington v. Davis — Study Notes

426 U.S. 229 (1976)

Study notes for Washington v. Davis: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

To prove a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, a plaintiff must show discriminatory intent, not just disparate impact.
Professor Notes

Washington v. Davis is a pivotal case in the area of equal protection under constitutional law, particularly pertaining to claims of discrimination based solely on disparate impact. The Supreme Court clarifies that intent must be established in order to prove an equal protection violation. The case emphasizes the distinction between discriminatory effects of a law and the necessity of demonstrating the law’s intent to discriminate, which is a crucial concept in constitutional law that students must grasp. This decision encapsulates the judicial approach towards evaluating governmental practices and supporting a standard that avoids mandating proof merely based on numerical outcomes of adverse impact on particular groups.

In discussing this case, it is imperative to highlight the implications on employment law and policies. The Court's insistence on intent sets a higher bar for claimants and underscores a fundamental principle in American civil rights litigation. Additionally, this case serves as a cornerstone for understanding subsequent rulings and the evolution of disparate impact claims, reinforcing that while discriminatory effects may be evident, the legal recourse requires clear evidence of discriminatory intent.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1What was the primary issue presented in Washington v. Davis?
  2. 2How did the Court define discriminatory intent in this case?
  3. 3Can you explain the difference between discriminatory impact and discriminatory intent?
  4. 4What implications does this case have for employment discrimination claims?
  5. 5How does Washington v. Davis relate to later cases involving equal protection?
  6. 6What standard did the Court establish with respect to proving an equal protection violation?
  7. 7Why was the ruling significant for future equal protection claims?
Mnemonic Device

D.I. = Disparate Impact does not equal Discriminatory Intent

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.Griggs established that an employment practice causing a disparate impact could violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which does not require showing intent, unlike Washington v. Davis.
McCleskey v. KempIn McCleskey, the Supreme Court reinforced the necessity of proving discriminatory intent in claims of racial bias in sentencing, aligning with the precedent set in Washington v. Davis.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro Board of REALTORSThis case discussed the need for evidence of intentional discrimination in housing policies, reinforcing the principle established in Washington v. Davis.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Requiring proof of discriminatory intent promotes careful consideration of the implications of claims against governmental policies, ensuring that courts do not act on mere statistical disparities which could lead to unnecessary backlash against legitimate policies.

Against the Rule

Not requiring intent can better address systemic inequalities that persist in society and hold institutions accountable for practices that adversely affect minority groups, regardless of intent.

Class Discussion Points
  • Discuss the implications of establishing intent for civil rights cases.
  • Evaluate the fairness of requiring proof of intent for claims of discrimination.
  • Examine how Washington v. Davis impacts the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause in modern contexts.
Exam Angle

On exams, expect questions to focus on the standards for proving equal protection claims and the differentiation between disparate impact and intent.

View Full Case Brief

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.