Blackwell v. Strain’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Statistical evidence alone is rarely enough to show discriminatory purpose. Although the Supreme Court “has accepted statistics as proof of intent to discriminate in certain limited contexts,” only in “rare cases [has] a statistical pattern of discriminatory impact demonstrated a constitutional violation.” McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 , 293 & n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1756 , 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987); Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266 , 97 S.Ct. 555 , 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977) (“Sometimes a clear pattern, unexplainable on grounds other than race, emerges from the effect of the state action.... But such cases are rare.”). This is because, to prevail on an equal protection claim, a plaintiff “must prove that the decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose.” McCleskey, 481 U.S. at 292 , 107 S.Ct. 1756 ..... Examples of “those rare cases in which a statistical pattern of discriminatory impact demonstrated a constitutional violation” include Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 340-41 , 81 S.Ct. 125 , 5 L.Ed.2d 110 (1960), and Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373-74 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886). McCleskey, 481 U.S. at 293 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1756 . In Gomillion , the Supreme Court held a state legislature violated the Fifteenth Amendment when it altered a city’s boundaries “from a square to an uncouth twenty-eight-sided figure,” thereby excluding 395 of 400 black voters without excluding a single white voter. 364 U.S. at 340-41 , 81”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 59 F. Supp. 3d 1331 - United States v. Rodella

2. “[T]he district court cited to statistical evidence regarding inspections conducted by Officer Strain at the POE: [O]n the date that Officer Strain encountered [Blackwell], Officer Strain inspected seven trucks. Three of the seven truckers (43%), well in excess of their representation (14.6%) in the population of truckers passing through the POE were Black, and every one of the Black truckers was subjected to a Level II inspection, which includes a safe loading check. The two truckers who were White were subjected to Level III inspections. Two of the truckers were Hispanic: one was subjected to a Level III inspection and one was subjected to a Level IÍ inspection. (citations omitted). This statistical evidence, although relevant, is based on seven inspections performed by Officer Strain on a single day and is, therefore, not reliable. See United States v. James, 257 F.3d 1173, 1180 (10th Cir.2001) (stating that a sample size may be “too small to provide reliable statistical results”); Chavez [v. Ill. State Police], 251 F.3d at 643 (noting that a sample size must be “sufficiently large to be reliable”). Even assuming its reliability, however, it does not show a stark pattern of discrimination like that in Gomillion or Yick Wo, and, therefore, cannot by itself demonstrate discriminatory purpose.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 59 F. Supp. 3d 1331 - United States v. Rodella

3. “This comparison of the percentage of black individuals arrested by Officer Strain as the result of patrolling with the percentage of black truckers he arrested passing through the POE is inappropriate. Even assuming its validity, however, this statistical comparison does not show a stark pattern of discrimination similar to that in Gomillion or Tick Wo. That is, the statistics are not so compelling that the only explanation for the anomalies therein is intentional racial discrimination. Thus, standing alone, this statistical evidence is not evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer Officer Strain was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 59 F. Supp. 3d 1331 - United States v. Rodella