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	John Paul Stevens ⓘ surface form: Justice John Paul Stevens
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Due Process Clause ⓘ surface form: Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment Equal Protection Clause ⓘ surface form: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
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 v. Davis self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: Washington et al. v. Davis et al.
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	Warren E. Burger ⓘ surface form: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ surface form: Justice Harry A. Blackmun Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ surface form: Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. Potter Stewart ⓘ surface form: Justice Potter Stewart Thurgood Marshall ⓘ surface form: Justice Thurgood Marshall William H. Rehnquist ⓘ surface form: Justice William H. Rehnquist William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ surface form: Justice William J. Brennan Jr.
jurisdictionBasis	federal question jurisdiction ⓘ
legalIssue	Equal Protection Clause ⓘ surface form: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment discriminatory intent requirement ⓘ disparate impact and equal protection ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Byron R. White ⓘ surface form: Justice Byron White
originatingJurisdiction	District of Columbia ⓘ
page	229 ⓘ
parties	Black applicants to the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department ⓘ Government of the District of Columbia ⓘ surface form: District of Columbia government officials
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 v. Davis self-linksurface differs ⓘ

this entity surface form: Washington et al. v. Davis et al.

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