Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, to show an equal protection violation when the policy is facially neutral, ―the Apellants would have to show that the p Appellees acted with discriminatory intent and the [policy] had a discriminatory impact‖
• holding that, to show an equal protection violation when the policy is facially neutral, ―the Appellants would have to show that the Appellees acted with discriminatory intent and the [policy] had a discriminatory impact‖
• defining “discriminatory intent” as implying “that the decision-maker . . . 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” (omission in original
• “[Plaintiffs] can also demonstrate intent by proving that the state took a particular course of action ‘because of’ its desire to benefit a particular racial group.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).