Washington v. Davis
- Decided
- June 7, 1976
- Docket
- 74-1492
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,450 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that “an invidious discriminatory purpose may often be inferred from the totality of the relevant facts” — Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School District (2015)
- holding that “an invidious discriminatory purpose may often be inferred from the totality of the relevant facts” — Robert F. Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Board of Education, Body Corporate Cromwell Board of Education Body Corporate (2001)
- holding that in order to prove an equal protection violation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant acted with discriminatory intent — Merrianne Weberg v. Randy Franks (2000)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*232] Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves the validity of a qualifying test administered to applicants for positions as police officers in the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. The test was sustained by the District Court but invalidated by the Court of Appeals. We are in agreement with the District Court and hence reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.