Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Pilea, HLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Washington v. Davis

(1976)

Supreme Court of the United States - 426 U.S. 229

tl;dr:

A test with a racially discriminatory impact of admission into the police force does not trigger strict scrutiny, and is not unconstitutional.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Washington v. Davis

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Washington v. Davis case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingWashington v. Davis case brief facts & holding

Facts:2 black men applied to the DC Metropolitan police department,...

Holding:Central purpose of equal protection = preventing conduct discriminating on...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Washington v. Davis case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Washington v. Davis | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Mr. Justice White
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

This case involves a personnel test, Test 21, used by the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department for police officer positions. African American police officers filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in the Department's promotion policies. Two other African American applicants intervened, claiming that the recruiting procedures, including Test 21, discriminated against black applicants. The Court of Appeals invalidated Test 21, citing its disproportionate impact on black candidates. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, finding that the test was not unlawfully discriminatory and did not violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court clarified that a racially disproportionate impact does not make an official act unconstitutional unless it reflects a racially discriminatory purpose. To prove intentional discrimination, a purpose to discriminate must be present. The principle of equal protection requires intentional state action resulting in a current condition of segregation for de jure segregation, while de facto segregation does not involve intentional segregation. The court found that it was an error to grant summary judgment for the respondents based on the Fifth Amendment and that the Court of Appeals should have affirmed the judgment of the District Court granting the motions for summary judgment filed by the petitioners and federal parties. The respondents were not entitled to relief on either constitutional or statutory grounds.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Washington v. Davis case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurrence), author: Mr. Justice Stevens
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

Justice Stevens agrees with the Court's decision but adds comments on the constitutional and statutory issues discussed in the opinion. He notes that purposeful discrimination is a common thread in cases involving criminal convictions, reapportionment, school desegregation, and unequal administration of ordinances. The most reliable evidence of intent is often objective evidence of what actually happened, rather than evidence of the actor's subjective state of mind. The distinction between discriminatory purpose and discriminatory impact is not always clear or critical, and a constitutional issue may not arise every time a disproportionate impact is shown. However, in cases where the disproportion is significant, the standard of purpose or effect may not matter.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Washington v. Davis case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

Dissenting opinion, author: Mr. Justice Brennan
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The dissenting opinion disagrees with the Court's decision that Test 21, a job qualification examination given by the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race under constitutional or statutory standards. The Court found Test 21 as job-related under 5 U.S.C. § 3304, but it may not necessarily be considered job-related under Title VII. The Court's analysis of the provision is irrelevant since the respondents did not make a claim under § 3304. The Court's conclusion is in conflict with Griggs and Albemarle, which held that if an employment practice that excludes a protected group cannot be shown to be related to job performance, it is prohibited. The Court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a correlation between Test 21 scores and job performance, and their validity study was unable to discern a significant positive relationship between training averages and job performance.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Washington v. Davis case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Washington v. Davis case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Washington v. Davis

Chat for Washington v. Davis
brief-831
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.