# Griggs *U.S. Supreme Court decision (1971) establishing the disparate-impact standard under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.* *Griggs v. Duke Power Co.*, 401 U.S. 424, was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 8, 1971. The vote was 8–0, and Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the Court.[^1] The decision created the disparate-impact doctrine under [[Title VII]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. Under that doctrine, an employment test that has a disparate impact must be job-related. The opinion reads the statute as directed to "the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation."[^1][^2] The Court returned to the standard twice within five years. In *Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody* (1975), it strengthened the *Griggs* disparate-impact standard.[^3] In *Washington v. Davis* (1976), it limited *Griggs* by requiring proof of intent for claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[^4] Burger was a Minnesota native.[^5] Title VII, the statute *Griggs* construed, is the statute under which the United States sued the State of [[Minnesota]] on January 14, 2026. The complaint cites [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]] eight times.[^6] The [[United States Department of Justice]] announced the suit in release No. 26-21, titled *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*.[^7] The action is pending. ## Who Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the opinion of the Court. The Court decided the case 8–0.[^1] ## What *Griggs* established that employment tests having a disparate impact must be job-related. This is the core of the disparate-impact doctrine under Title VII.[^1] Five years later, *Washington v. Davis* required intent for claims under the Equal Protection Clause.[^4] That ruling left a statutory standard keyed to impact beside a constitutional standard keyed to intent. Wikipedia's account of *Davis* describes the result as a tension between the two standards.[^8] ## When - March 8, 1971: *Griggs* decided.[^1] - 1975: *Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody* decided, strengthening the *Griggs* standard.[^3] - 1976: *Washington v. Davis* decided, limiting *Griggs* under the Equal Protection Clause.[^4] ## Where The Court decided *Griggs* in Washington, D.C.[^1] ## Why The opinion grounds its holding in the statute's attention to "the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation."[^2] At page 436, the opinion quotes Humphrey on the Tower Amendment substitute: "Senators on both sides of the aisle who were deeply interested in title VII have examined the text of this amendment, and have found it to be in accord with the intent and purpose of that title."[^1] The U.S. Senate Historical Office publishes a transcript of the Humphrey–Thurmond civil rights filibuster debate, 110 Cong. Rec. 6429 (March 26, 1964). It records the statement "And there is nothing in this section that calls for racial balance, as the Senator spoke of."[^9] ## How The *Griggs* standard operates on outcomes. Where a test produces a disparate impact, the test must be job-related. The inquiry reaches consequences, not motivation alone.[^1][^2] Constitutional claims follow a different rule. After *Washington v. Davis*, an equal-protection claim requires intent.[^4] ## How many - The vote in *Griggs* was 8–0.[^1] - The complaint in the 2026 federal action cites Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 eight times, as of its filing on January 14, 2026.[^6] ## In the at-issue record The project's at-issue record (pair 71, Ramsey County) concerns a September 8, 2021 announcement by the [[Ramsey County Attorney]], John J. Choi. Choi announced that his office would decline to prosecute charges arising from non-public-safety stops and consent-only vehicle searches.[^10] The stated justification was a disparity: Black drivers in Ramsey County were four times more likely to be pulled over and nine times more likely to be searched. No finding of intent was made.[^10] The at-issue record characterizes the declination as *Griggs* reasoning exercised as charging discretion. It pairs the declination with the White House presidential action of April 2025, *Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy*.[^10] The project's validated Burger dossier records measured outcomes as of June 2023: - non-public-safety stops down 86%; - searches down 92%; - stops of Black drivers down 66%. The dossier also records "no discernible public safety impact."[^10] Ramsey County [[sheriff]] Bob Fletcher initially called the policy "a mistake for the county attorney to make the decision as to what law enforcement should and should not do." He then partnered with the office.[^10] The record shows the policy, its stated basis and its measured outputs. It does not establish anything beyond them. ## In the Minnesota record ### Who Warren Burger, the author of *Griggs*, was a Minnesota native.[^5] The project's history records that he was born in Saint Paul in 1907 and educated at the county's [[Night law school]]. The project's time table (row TL-0241) ties the *Griggs* framework to Minn. Stat. § 43A.191. That connection is the time table's, not a court's.[^5] The United States brought the 2026 action through the Department of Justice. Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^7] ### What The complaint in [[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]] is brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It cites Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 eight times.[^6] The citations include subdivision 3(c), which requires an agency to explain the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^6] The Department's release names the State's apparatus "Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime."[^7] The U.S. government has used "regime" for governments it opposes. The [[Iraq Liberation Act]] of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-338), for example, states the policy of supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein."[^11] The project's catalogue of U.S.-government "regime" usages ([[How Minnesota Got Here]], note 40) finds Minnesota the only U.S. state so described.[^11] In a separate Title VII case, [[Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services]], 605 U.S. 303 (2025), the Supreme Court held that the disparate-treatment provision "draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs."[^12] The Court rejected the Sixth Circuit's heightened "background circumstances" rule for majority-group plaintiffs.[^12] ### When - September 8, 2021: Ramsey County Attorney's declination announced.[^10] - January 14, 2026: complaint filed and release No. 26-21 issued.[^6][^7] ### Where The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, No. 0:26-cv-00273.[^6] ## Notes [^1]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Griggs v. Duke Power Co.*, 401 U.S. 424 (Mar. 8, 1971) — the opinion (Burger, C.J.), decided 8–0 in Washington, D.C.; holds that employment tests with a disparate impact must be job-related; at 436 quotes Humphrey on the Tower Amendment substitute. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/424/ [^2]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Griggs v. Duke Power Co.*, 401 U.S. 424 (Mar. 8, 1971), text via Cornell LII — the opinion's reading of Title VII as directed to "the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation." https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/401/424 [^3]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody*, 422 U.S. 405 (1975) — strengthens the *Griggs* disparate-impact standard. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/405/ [^4]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Washington v. Davis*, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) — limits *Griggs*; requires intent under the Equal Protection Clause. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/426/229/ [^5]: Wikipedia, *Griggs v. Duke Power Co.* — cited by the project's time table (row TL-0241) for Burger as a Minnesota native; the time table's link of the framework to Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 is the project's own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co [^6]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, *Complaint, United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn. filed Jan. 14, 2026) — Title VII action; cites Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 eight times, including subd. 3(c). https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^7]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*, release No. 26-21 (Jan. 14, 2026) — announces the suit; Attorney General Pamela Bondi's certification of general public importance. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-department-justice-files-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-affirmative-action-regime [^8]: Wikipedia, *Washington v. Davis* — cited by the project's time table (row TL-0298) for the tension between the statutory (*Griggs*) and constitutional standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v._Davis [^9]: U.S. Senate Historical Office, *Transcript of the Humphrey–Thurmond civil rights filibuster debate*, 110 Cong. Rec. 6429 (Mar. 26, 1964) — records the statement "And there is nothing in this section that calls for racial balance, as the Senator spoke of." https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/CivilRightsFilibuster_HumphreyThurmondDebate.pdf [^10]: Project at-issue record, pair AI-Ramsey-071, and *Warren E. Burger Apex Dossier* §VIII (validated) — the September 8, 2021 declination, the 4x and 9x figures, the June 2023 outcomes and the sheriff's response (the underlying sources on abajournal.com and ramseycountymn.gov are not among this article's citable URLs). The URL is the pair's federal anchor: The White House, *Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy*, presidential action (April 2025). https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy/ [^11]: U.S. Congress, *Iraq Liberation Act of 1998*, Pub. L. 105-338 — states the policy of supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein." The finding that Minnesota is the only U.S. state so described is the project's catalogue (How Minnesota Got Here, note 40), not this law's. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ338/pdf/PLAW-105publ338.pdf [^12]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services*, 605 U.S. 303 (2025) — Title VII's disparate-treatment provision "draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs"; rejects the "background circumstances" rule. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf