Difference between revisions of "Intent standard"
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The '''intent standard''' is the idea that, for a [[facially neutral statute]] which has [[disparate impacts]], tending towards discrimination, to be illegal, the allegedly neutral statute must have been drafted with discriminatory intent.<ref> For racial cases, see ''Washington v. Davis,'' cf. ''Feeney'' in gender cases.</ref> Commentators have noted that this is essentially a requirement of the criminal ''[[mens rea]]'' of intent, a very high standard to meet in a civil case. | + | The '''intent standard''' is the idea that, for a [[facially neutral statute]] which has [[disparate impacts]], tending towards discrimination, to be illegal, the allegedly neutral statute must have been drafted with discriminatory intent.<ref>For racial cases, see ''Washington v. Davis,'' cf. ''Feeney'' in gender cases.</ref> Commentators have noted that this is essentially a requirement of the criminal ''[[mens rea]]'' of intent, a very high standard to meet in a civil case. Some statutes, by virtue of the severity of their disparate impact, are ''per se'' discriminatory.<ref>See e.g. ''Yick Wo.''</ref> |
| − | == References == | + | ==References== |
| + | <references/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Law]] | ||
Latest revision as of 14:23, July 13, 2016
The intent standard is the idea that, for a facially neutral statute which has disparate impacts, tending towards discrimination, to be illegal, the allegedly neutral statute must have been drafted with discriminatory intent.[1] Commentators have noted that this is essentially a requirement of the criminal mens rea of intent, a very high standard to meet in a civil case. Some statutes, by virtue of the severity of their disparate impact, are per se discriminatory.[2]