Chicago & E. R. v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that it is not necessary to demonstrate that the challenged action was taken solely for discriminatory purposes; it is necessary only to prove that a discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor
• explaining that it is not necessary to demonstrate that the challenged action was taken solely for discriminatory purposes; it is necessary only to prove that a discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor
• affirming refusal to grant preliminary injunction on grounds that disparate impact had not been adequately shown
• Although “[t]he discriminatory purpose need not be the only purpose, ... it must be a motivating factor in the decision”
• charter school act did not create suspect class based on ethnicity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).