MBE Rules · Constitutional Law
EP — disparate impact requires discriminatory intent
Washington v. Davis
The rule
A facially neutral law with disparate racial/etc. impact does not violate Equal Protection unless plaintiff proves discriminatory PURPOSE motivated the law. Disparate impact alone insufficient (Washington v. Davis).
In plain English
If a law affects different races unequally, it only breaks the rules if it was made on purpose to discriminate.
Worked example
A city requires all police officers to pass a fitness test. If fewer minority applicants pass, it's not illegal unless it's shown the test was designed to exclude them.
Memory hook
Impact Isn't Intent: Neutral laws need a motive. Disparate impact alone doesn't breach Equal Protection without proof of intent.
The trap
Students think: Disparate impact alone is enough for EP violation. Wrong, because intent must be proven. The actual test is discriminatory purpose.
How examiners test it
The MBE loves: facially neutral policy leads to racial disparity. Trap: assuming impact suffices for EP claim. Key: look for evidence of discriminatory intent.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.