We all remember reading Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, 429 U.S. 252 (1976), (”Arlington Heights I“) in law school. It stated three types of evidence that a plaintiff may use to prove racial discrimination violative of the Equal Protection Clause. Advocates, myself included, often believe that Arlington Heights I tempered the Court’s ruling in Washington v. Davis. Many believe that Arlington Heights I offers a viable method to circumvent the subjective intent requirements of the Intent Doctrine.

One year ago, a UC Davis Law student and participant in the race equity seminar, offered during the 2006 Fall semester at UC Davis Law, wrote a paper examining how courts have applied Arlington Heights I in the thirty years since that case was decided. Somewhat surprisingly, she discovered that only one case has applied the Arlington Heights factors and found evidence sufficient to support a finding of intentional discrimination. Perhaps more surprisingly, she discovered that federal courts have, by in large, failed to conduct the fact-intensive inquiries mandated by Arlington Heights I. Interested in reading her paper? Take a look.