Law Commons^™

Disproportionate Impact And Illicit Motive: Theories Of Constitutional Adjudication, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Recent decisions of the Supreme Court have not been kind to those who favor an expansive reading of the equal protection clause. Last Term, in Washington v. Davis, the Court held that the disproportionate impact of governmental action on minority groups is not unconstitutional unless accompanied by proof of intentional discrimination. This Term, in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., the Court reinforced the intent barrier to the finding of equal protection violations. Mr. Eisenberg argues in this Article that the Washington test is too harsh, and was required neither by practical necessity nor by …