Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

invidious discrimination

Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court

Definitions from Case Law

From 348 U.S. 483 - Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · 1955Most cited · 6,192 citing opinions

The prohibition of the Equal Protection Clause goes no further than the invidious discrimination.

How the Supreme Court has restated “invidious discrimination”

195519601967 most cited: 348 U.S. 483 - Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. (1955)
first statedevolveddeparted

Each Supreme Court definition of “invidious discrimination,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.

How often courts cite the cases defining “invidious discrimination”

1950196019802000202020303.1k

Court decisions citing the 5 opinions that defined “invidious discrimination” — 9,975 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.

All 5 definitions, chronological · 1955–1967

  1. 1963·372 U.S. 726 - Ferguson v. Skrupa[p9]· cited 1,991×

    Statutes create many classifications which do not deny equal protection; it is only 'invidious discrimination' which offends the Constitution.

  2. The 'rough accommodations' made by government do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment unless the lines drawn are 'hostile or invidious.

  3. 1966·384 U.S. 73 - Burns v. Richardson[p20]· cited 906×

    apportionment schemes including multi-member districts will constitute an invidious discrimination only if it can be shown that 'designedly or otherwise, a multi-member constituency apportionment scheme, under the circumstances of a particular case, would operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial or political elements of the voting population.

    multi-member legislative districts

  4. 1967·387 U.S. 112 - Dusch v. Davis[p9]· cited 435×

    The constitutional test under the Equal Protection Clause is whether there is an 'invidious' discrimination.