Washington v. Davis
Citation
426 U.S. 229 (1976)
Facts
The Washington, DC police department required applicants to pass a written personnel test (Test 21) that assessed verbal ability, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. Black applicants failed the test at a significantly higher rate than white applicants. Two Black applicants who failed sued under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (applicable to the federal government through reverse incorporation), arguing that the test’s disparate racial impact alone established a constitutional violation.
Issue
Is a facially neutral government action that has a racially disproportionate impact — without any discriminatory purpose — subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause?
Holding
No. The Supreme Court held that discriminatory impact alone does not trigger strict scrutiny or establish a constitutional violation. Proof of discriminatory purpose or intent is required.
Rule / Doctrine
Discriminatory intent requirement: the Equal Protection Clause requires proof of purposeful discrimination to trigger heightened scrutiny of facially neutral laws. Disparate racial impact is relevant evidence but insufficient on its own. The Arlington Heights factors guide courts in determining whether intent exists: statistical evidence of impact, historical background, sequence of events, departures from normal procedure, and legislative or administrative history.
Significance
Washington v. Davis drew a critical distinction between constitutional equal protection (intent required) and statutory disparate-impact liability (e.g., under Title VII, which does not require intent). The decision constrains equal protection claims to intentional discrimination, leaving disparate-impact theory to statutes. It is foundational for understanding the limits of the Equal Protection Clause.