Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 332 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. Anchor | green | “determining whether invidious discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor demands a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available.” | 104 |
| 2 | Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. | green | “proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the equal protection clause.” | 90 |
| 3 | Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney | green | “selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part 'because of,' not merely 'in spite of,' its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” | 35 |
| 4 | Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. | green | “demands a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available.” | 30 |
| 5 | Washington v. Davis | green | “disproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination forbidden by the constitution.” | 22 |
| 6 | Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney | green | “implies more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences.” | 17 |
| 7 | Hunter v. Underwood | green | “once racial discrimination is shown to have been a 'substantial' or 'motivating' factor behind enactment of the law, the burden shifts to the law's defenders to demonstrate that the law would have been enacted without this factor.” | 16 |
| 8 | Washington v. Davis | green | “an invidious discriminatory purpose may often be inferred from the totality of the relevant facts, including the fact, if it is true, that the law bears more heavily on one race than another.” | 8 |
| 9 | Hunter v. Underwood | green | “the burden shifts to the law's defenders to demonstrate that the law would have been enacted without this factor.” | 5 |
| 10 | North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory | green | “scrutinize the legislature's actual non-racial motivations to determine whether they alone can justify the legislature's choices.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.