Washington v. Davis

E94545

Fourteenth Amendment case United States Supreme Court case constitutional law case equal protection case

Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (2)

Label	Occurrences
Washington v. Davis canonical	5
Washington et al. v. Davis et al.	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T752718 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Washington v. Davis
Context triple: [Equal Protection Clause, basisFor, Washington v. Davis]

A. Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
B. Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
C. Gebhart v. Belton
Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
D. Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
E. Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Yick Wo v. Hopkins is an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Washington v. Davis
Target entity description: Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.

A. Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
B. Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
C. Gebhart v. Belton
Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
D. Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
E. Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Yick Wo v. Hopkins is an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (51)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Fourteenth Amendment case ⓘ United States Supreme Court case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ equal protection case ⓘ
appliesTo	federal government actions through the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause ⓘ
areaOfLaw	anti-discrimination law ⓘ civil rights law ⓘ
arguedDate	1976-01-12 ⓘ
challengedPolicy	use of a written personnel test (Test 21) for police officer applicants ⓘ
citation	426 U.S. 229 ⓘ
concurrenceBy	Justice John Paul Stevens ⓘ linked to: John Paul Stevens
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment ⓘ linked to: Due Process Clause Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ linked to: Equal Protection Clause
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1976-06-07 ⓘ
factualFinding	the written test disproportionately disqualified Black applicants compared to white applicants ⓘ
fullName	Washington et al. v. Davis et al. ⓘ linked to: Washington v. Davis
holding	A law or official act is not unconstitutional solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact. ⓘ Disparate impact alone does not trigger strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. ⓘ Proof of discriminatory purpose is required to establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. ⓘ
impactOnDoctrine	established that disparate impact alone does not violate equal protection without proof of discriminatory intent ⓘ
influenced	McCleskey v. Kemp ⓘ Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney ⓘ Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	Chief Justice Warren E. Burger ⓘ linked to: Warren E. Burger Justice Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ linked to: Harry A. Blackmun Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ linked to: Lewis F. Powell Jr. Justice Potter Stewart ⓘ linked to: Potter Stewart Justice Thurgood Marshall ⓘ linked to: Thurgood Marshall Justice William H. Rehnquist ⓘ linked to: William H. Rehnquist Justice William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ linked to: William J. Brennan Jr.
jurisdictionBasis	federal question jurisdiction ⓘ
legalIssue	Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ linked to: Equal Protection Clause discriminatory intent requirement ⓘ disparate impact and equal protection ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Justice Byron White ⓘ linked to: Byron R. White
originatingJurisdiction	District of Columbia ⓘ
page	229 ⓘ
parties	Black applicants to the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department ⓘ District of Columbia government officials ⓘ linked to: Government of the District of Columbia
precedentFor	intent requirement in equal protection challenges to facially neutral laws ⓘ
relatedConcept	discriminatory purpose ⓘ disparate impact ⓘ facially neutral law with racially disparate effects ⓘ
reporter	United States Reports ⓘ
ruleOfLaw	Discriminatory purpose must be shown to prove racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. ⓘ Statistical racial disparities are relevant but not sufficient by themselves to prove unconstitutional discrimination. ⓘ
subjectMatter	employment testing for police officers ⓘ
subsequentCitationFrequency	frequently cited in equal protection jurisprudence ⓘ
volume	426 ⓘ
year	1976 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (6)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Equal Protection Clause → basisFor → Washington v. Davis ⓘ

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. → relatedCase → Washington v. Davis ⓘ

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. → relatedCase → Washington v. Davis ⓘ

Washington v. Davis → fullName → Washington et al. v. Davis et al. ⓘ

linked to: Washington v. Davis

Yick Wo v. Hopkins → subsequentCitationBy → Washington v. Davis ⓘ

Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney → relatedCase → Washington v. Davis ⓘ

All labels observed (2)

How this entity was disambiguated Show

Statements (51)

How these facts were elicited Show

Referenced by (6)

How this entity was disambiguated

How these facts were elicited