Washington v. Davis made discriminatory intent a prerequisite for equal-protection race claims.

Evidence

Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) (adopting intent/purpose requirement as a prerequisite to proving race discrimination in equal protection jurisprudence). … See Alan D. Freeman, Legitimizing Racial Discrimination through Antidiscrimination Law: A Critical Review of Supreme Court Doctrine, 63 Minnesota Law Review 1049, 1052–57 (1978); Charles R. Lawrence III, The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism, 39 Stanford Law Review 317, 318–19 (1987); Luke W. Cole, Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection: The Need for Environmental Poverty Law, 19 Ecology Law Review 619, 642 (1992). — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up, 1038

Categorization

• DEFINE: Precise anchor for the narrow intent standard thread that runs through the book as the reader’s stated bridge.
• XREF: connects to: Since 1976 courts require proof of individual intent to find race discrimination — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental…, 326; Title VI regulations allow discrimination suits on discriminatory effect while the statute demands intent — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental…, 1007; Washington v. Davis requires proof of discriminatory intent, not just disparate impact — Sahar F. Aziz, The Racial Muslim: When Racism Quashes…, 59 (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• Washington v. Davis requires proof of discriminatory intent, not just disparate impact #corroborates (0.98) — Sahar F. Aziz, The Racial Muslim, 59
• Courts require proof of discriminatory intent, not just disparate impact, to protect Muslims #exemplifies (0.85) — Sahar F. Aziz, The Racial Muslim, 59
• Intent-to-discriminate requirements block Muslim equal protection claims #expands (0.85)
• US law requires proof of racist intent, not just disparate impact, to win #expands (0.85) — Harriet A. Washington, A Terrible Thing to Waste, 470
• Courts demand proof of discriminatory intent, not mere racial imbalance, in jury challenges #exemplifies (0.80) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 836
• Race-based remedies require proving both discriminatory intent and impact #expands (0.78) — Dorothy A. Brown, Getting to Reparations, 1296
• Courts recognized racially discriminatory jury strikes as constitutional violations #complicates (0.75) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 885
• The Supreme Court explicitly protects race-neutral tax statutes from disparate-impact challenges. #exemplifies (0.75) — Dorothy A. Brown, The Whiteness of Wealth, 550