in 1954 the landmark case Brown versus
Board of Education famously put an end
to the separate-but-equal doctrine that
had for decades permitted racial
segregation in America but the country
wasn't integrated overnight many areas
of the country remained stubbornly
segregated Arlington Heights was a
Chicago suburb that remained
predominantly white even as its
population grew in the 1960s in 1971 a
nonprofit organization called the
metropolitan Housing Development
Corporation or mHDC wanted to build
apartments in Arlington Heights for
lower-income tenants the mHDC also
intended the development to be racially
integrated the mHDC planned to use land
that was zoned for single-family homes
so it had to apply for rezoning before
building the apartments a number of
Arlington Heights residents opposed the
MH DC's request for rezoning the
residents pointed out that the plan
didn't comply with technical zoning
requirements additionally homeowners
thought that new development would hurt
property values finally even though many
residents welcomed racial integration
and lower-income housing others in the
community were less tolerant ultimately
the Zoning Board denied the MH DC's
request for rezoning which prevented the
project from moving forward
the mHDC sued Arlington Heights in
federal court alleging that the zoning
decision was discriminatory and violated
the Fourteenth Amendments Equal
Protection Clause the district court
sided with Arlington Heights finding
that the zoning decision was not
motivated by racial discrimination and
had no discriminatory effect the Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
reversed holding that the zoning Board's
decision had a discriminatory effect on
racial minorities and that Arlington
Heights had therefore violated the
Fourteenth Amendment Arlington Heights
petitioned the United States Supreme
Court for review
the question for the Supreme Court was
this does government action violate the
Fourteenth Amendment if it produces
discriminatory results even without a
showing of discriminatory intent the
court determined that a government
action with discriminatory results
doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment
unless discrimination was a quote
motivating factor unquote
Justice Powell wrote for the five
justice majority Powell wrote that
government actions with discriminatory
impact are not automatically
unconstitutional rather the plaintiff
must show that discrimination influenced
the state's decision to take the
challenge to action to determine whether
discrimination was a motivating factor
in state action courts must consider a
number of issues first the court must
look for discriminatory impact which
occurs when the action quote bears more
heavily on one race than another unquote
but discriminatory impact is just one
factor the court should also examine the
historical context of the action and
look for a pattern of discrimination in
the area
third unusual departures from standard
procedure may suggest a discriminatory
purpose lastly legislative history can
help to explain the thinking behind the
official action if these factors taken
together shows that discrimination was a
motivating factor in state action with
discriminatory results then the action
violates the 14th amendment Powell then
applied the motivating factor test to
the situation in Arlington Heights
Powell acknowledged that the zoning
decision had a disproportionate effect
on minorities many of whom needed
affordable housing but looking at the
other factors Powell determined that the
town's reasons were legitimate the
Arlington Heights zoning plan have been
established for years and it had always
favored single-family housing the MH
DC's request to rezone the area for
apartments was inconsistent with the
town's established preference for
single-family homes the Zoning Board
followed standard procedure for
considering the MH DC's request and the
board held hearings focusing on
established criteria unbalanced the
Court determined that the mHDC failed to
demonstrate that racial discrimination
was a motivating factor in the town's
zoning decision the court reversed the
Seventh Circuit's decision and remanded
the case for further proceedings
just as Marshall joined by Justice
Brennan concurred in part and descended
in part Marshall agreed with the
majority's legal reasoning but he
thought the case should have been
remanded for a final decision to the
Court of Appeals which was better suited
to apply the motivating factor test
justice white dissented he pointed out
that the Seventh Circuit decided the MHD
C's appeal before the supreme court had
issued its decision in Washington versus
Davis which established many of the
majority's key principles justice white
would have remanded the case to allow
the lower court to reach its own
decision in accordance with the Davis
case the Arlington Heights case was
important for firmly prioritizing
discriminatory intent over
discriminatory impact in analyzing
whether a government's action violates
the Fourteenth Amendment