Connection lost
Server error
Washington v. Davis Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Black police applicants challenged a qualifying test they failed at a higher rate than white applicants. The Supreme Court held that a facially neutral law with a disproportionate racial impact does not violate the Equal Protection Clause without proof of a racially discriminatory purpose.
Legal Significance: This landmark case established that a violation of the Equal Protection Clause requires proof of discriminatory purpose (intent), not merely a showing of disproportionate racial impact (effect). It distinguished the constitutional standard from the statutory “disparate impact” standard under Title VII.
Washington v. Davis Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Respondents, two Black applicants who were rejected from the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, challenged the department’s recruiting procedures. Specifically, they alleged that “Test 21,” a written personnel test developed by the U.S. Civil Service Commission, was racially discriminatory in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which contains an equal protection component. The respondents did not claim that the department had an intentional purpose to discriminate. Instead, they presented evidence showing that Black applicants failed Test 21 at a rate four times higher than white applicants. The District Court granted summary judgment for the petitioners (D.C. officials), finding that the test was reasonably related to the police recruit training program and that the department had made affirmative efforts to recruit Black officers. The Court of Appeals reversed, applying the statutory disparate impact standard from Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), and holding that the test’s disproportionate impact, absent proof of its direct relationship to job performance, established a constitutional violation.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a facially neutral government action violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact, without proof of a racially discriminatory purpose?
No. The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a facially neutral government action violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact, without proof of a racially discriminatory purpose?
Conclusion
This case created a crucial doctrinal split between statutory and constitutional discrimination Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostru
Legal Rule
A law or other official act, neutral on its face, is not Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu f
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court, in Part II of its opinion, firmly distinguished the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ex
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A facially neutral law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause