source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Me. Justice Rehnquist

license: Public Domain

text:
    INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 790 v. ROBBINS & MYERS, INC., et al.
    No. 75-1264.
    Argued November 9, 1976
    Decided December 20, 1976

      Winn Newman argued the cause for petitioner in No. 75-1264. With him on the briefs were Ruth Weyand, Michael H. Gottesman, Robert M. Weinberg, J. Albert Woll, and Laurence Gold. Barry L. Goldstein argued the cause for petitioner in No. 75-1276. With him on the briefs were Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Eric Schnapper, and Albert J. Rosenthal.

      Fletcher L. Hudson argued the cause for respondent Robbins & Myers, Inc., in both cases pro hac vice. With him on the brief was Charles A. Lawrence, Jr.

      Together with No. 75-1276, Guy v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., also on certiorari to the same court.

        Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Pottinger, Walter W. Barnett, Abner W. Sibal, Joseph T. Eddins, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Charles S. P. Hodge filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal in both eases.

        Jay S. Siegel and Douglas S. McDowell filed a brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council as amicus curiae urging affirmance in both cases.

   Me. Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioners seek review of a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that a claim brought by petitioner Dortha Guy under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was barred by her failure to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within the statutory limitations period. They present three contentions: The existence and utilization of grievance procedures postpone the date on which an allegedly discriminatory firing took place; the existence and utilization of grievance procedures toll the running of the limitations period which would otherwise begin on the date of the firing; and the 1972 amendments to Title VII, Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 103 (Mar. 24, 1972), extending the limitations period from 90 to 180 days, apply to the charge in this case.

I

Respondent Robbins & Myers, Inc. (hereinafter respondent), terminated the employment of petitioner Guy on October 25, 1971, and assigned as its reason for doing so her failure to comply with procedures contained in the collective-bargaining agreement pertaining to leaves of absence. Two days later petitioner caused a grievance alleging an “unfair action” of the company in firing her to be filed on her behalf in accordance with the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement then in force between petitioner Local 790 of the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers (Local 790) and respondent. That agreement’s dispute-resolution procedure, which is to be commenced within “five (5) working days of the commission of the act originating the grievance,” consists of three grievance steps followed by one arbitration step. Guy’s grievance was processed through the third step of the grievance procedure where it was denied on November 18, 1971, with the finding that her termination had been in accordance with the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement.

On February 10, 1972, a date 84 days after the denial of her grievance at the third stage, but 108 days after the date of her discharge, Guy, who is black, filed a charge of racial discrimination with the EEOC directed against both respondent and Local 790. The EEOC in November 1973 issued its determination and “right to sue” letter, finding that there was “no reason to believe that race was a factor in the decision to discharge” Guy. Her suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5, was met by a motion to dismiss on the ground, inter alia, that it was barred because of her failure to file a charge with the EEOC within 90 days of her discharge, § 706 (d), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (d). The District Court dismissed her action, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment by a divided vote, 525 F. 2d 124 (1975). That court felt that it would be “utterly inconsistent” with our opinions in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S. 454 (1975) and in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 (1974), to hold that the pursuit of a contractual grievance procedure operates to toll a Title VII remedy “which the employee has a right to resort to concurrently.” 525 F. 2d, at 126. Then, noting the question of the applicability of the 1972 amendments to Title VII raised by the EEOC as amicus curiae (also noting without more that “[s]ince this issue was not raised in the District Court by any party to the case, we are not required to consider it”), the Court of Appeals stated:

“Plaintiff Guy’s claim was barred on January 24, 1972. She did not file her charge with EEOC until February 10, 1972. The amendments to Title VII, increasing the time within which to file her charge to 180 days, did not become effective until March 24, 1972. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (e) [1970 ed., Supp. V], The subsequent increase of time to file the charge enacted by Congress could not revive plaintiff’s claim which had been previously barred and extinguished.” 525 F. 2d, at 128.

The dissenting judge disagreed on this point, believing that the case should be remanded for consideration of the effect of the 1972 amendments.

We granted certiorari, 425 U. S. 950, to resolve an apparent Circuit conflict on two of these issues: tolling during the pendency of a collective-bargaining-contract’s grievance mechanism, and the applicability of the 1972 amendments to charges filed more than 90 days from the date of the alleged discriminatory act but less than 180 days before the time the amendments became effective.

II

Before reaching either of those questions, however, petitioners Guy and Local 790 assert that the complaint with the EEOC was timely filed, not because of any tolling concept, but simply because the date “the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred” is the date of the conclusion of the collective-bargaining agreement’s grievance-arbitration procedures. Until that time, we are told, the October 25 discharge of Guy (although itself an “occurrence” allowing immediate resort to the EEOC) was “tentative” and “non-final,” and remained so until she terminated the grievance and arbitration process, at which time the “final” occurrence transpired. As a consequence, according to petitioners, the unfavorable termination of the grievance procedures, making the discharge “final,” constituted an “occurrence” enabling Guy to start the 90-day period running from that date.

While the parties could conceivably have agreed to a contract under which management’s ultimate adoption of a supervisor’s recommendation would be deemed the relevant statutory “occurrence,” this was not such a contract. For all that appears Guy was fired as of October 25, 1971, and all parties so understood. She stopped work and ceased receiving pay and benefits as of that date. Unless the grievanee procedures resulted in her reinstatement, she would not be entitled to be paid for the period during which the grievance procedures were being implemented. The grievance lodged on October 27, 1971, protests the “unfair action of Co. for discharge” (emphasis added), while the complaint filed in the District Court alleges Guy’s disagreement, after learning of her discharge, “with the Company’s determination that she had Voluntarily quit,”’ (emphasis added). Throughout the proceedings both in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals, both sides appear to have assumed, as did the courts, that the date of discharge was October 25, 1971. There being no indication that either party viewed the October 25 discharge as anything other than “final,” there is certainly no reason for us to now torture this mutual understanding by accepting the bare assertions to the contrary raised by petitioners for the first time before this Court.

Ill

We think that petitioners’ arguments for tolling the statutory period for filing a claim with the EEOC during the pendency of grievance or arbitration procedures under the collective-bargaining contract are virtually foreclosed by our decisions in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 (1974), and in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S. 454 (1975). In Alexander we held that an arbitrator’s decision pursuant to provisions in a collective-bargaining contract was not binding on an individual seeking to pursue his Title VII remedies in court. We reasoned that the contractual rights under a collective-bargaining agreement and the statutory right provided by Congress under Title VII “have legally independent origins and are equally available to the aggrieved employee,” 415 U. S., at 52, and for that reason we concluded:

“[I]n instituting an action under Title VII, the employee is not seeking review of the arbitrator’s decision. Rather, he is asserting a statutory right independent of the arbitration process.” Id., at 54.

One Term later, we reaffirmed the independence of Title VII remedies from other pre-existing remedies available to an aggrieved employee. In Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, we held that the timely filing of a charge with the EEOC pursuant to § 706 of Title VII did not toll the running of the statute of limitations applicable to an action, based on the same facts, brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1981. In reaffirming the independence of Title VII remedies from other remedies, we noted that such independence might occasionally be a two-edged sword, but “in the face of congressional emphasis upon the existence and independence of the two remedies,” we were disinclined “to infer any positive preference for one over the other, without a more definite expression in the legislation Congress has enacted,” 421 U. S., at 461.

Petitioners insist that notwithstanding these decisions, equitable tolling principles should be applied to this litigation, and that the application of such principles would toll the 90-day period pending completion of the grievance procedures. This is so, they say, because here the “policy of repose, designed to protect defendants,” Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U. S. 424, 428 (1965), is “outweighed [because] the interests of justice require vindication of the plaintiff’s rights.”

But this is quite a different situation from Burnett, supra. There the plaintiff in a Federal Employers’ Liability Act action had asserted his FELA claim in the state courts, which had concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts, but he had the misfortune of filing his complaint in an Ohio State court where venue did not lie under Ohio law. This Court held that such a filing was sufficient to toll the statutory limitations period, even though the state-court action was dismissed for improper venue and a new complaint ultimately filed in the United States District Court. The Court said:

“Petitioner here did not sleep on his rights but brought an action within the statutory period in a state court of competent jurisdiction. Service of process was made upon the respondent notifying him that petitioner was asserting his cause of action.” Id., at 429.

Here petitioner Guy in the grievance proceedings was not asserting the same statutory claim in a different forum, nor giving notice to respondent of that statutory claim, but was asserting an independent claim based on a contract right, Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., supra, at 53-54, 56-58. Burnett cannot aid this petitioner, see Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, supra, at 467, and n. 14.

Petitioners advance as a corollary argument for tolling the premise that substantial policy considerations, based on the central role of arbitration in labor-management relations, see Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U. S. 564 (1960); Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448 (1957), also dictate a finding that the Title VII limitations period is tolled in this situation. Similar arguments by the employer in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., urging the superiority and pre-eminence of the arbitration process were rejected by us in that case, and we find the reasoning of that case controlling in rejecting this claim made by petitioners.

Petitioners also advance a related argument that the danger of possible conflict between the concurrent pursuit of both collective-bargaining and Title VII remedies should result in tolling the limitations period for the latter while the former proceeds to conclusion. Similar arguments to these, albeit relating to 42 U. S. C. § 1981 and not to private labor agreements, were however, raised and rejected in Johnson. We think the language we used in that case is sufficient to dispose of this claim:

“[I]t is conceivable, and perhaps almost to be expected, that failure to toll will have the effect of pressing a civil rights complainant who values his § 1981 claim into court before the EEOC has completed its administrative proceeding. One answer to this, although perhaps not a highly satisfactory one, is that the plaintiff in his § 1981 suit may ask the court to stay proceedings until the administrative efforts at conciliation and voluntary compliance have been completed. But the fundamental answer to petitioner’s argument lies in the fact — presumably a happy one for the civil rights claimant — that Congress clearly has retained § 1981 as a remedy against private employment discrimination separate from and independent of the more elaborate and time-consuming procedures of Title VII.” 421 U. S., at 465-466.

Petitioners contend at some length that tolling would impose almost no costs, as the delays occasioned by the grievance-arbitration process would be "slight,” noting that the maximum delay in invoking the three-stage grievance procedure (although not including the arbitration step) under the collective-bargaining agreement in force in this case would be 35 days. But the principal answer to this contention is that Congress has already spoken with respect to what it considers acceptable delay when it established a 90-day limitations period, and gave no indication that it considered a “slight” delay followed by 90 days equally acceptable. In defining Title VII's jurisdictional prerequisites “with precision,” Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S., at 47, Congress did not leave to courts the decision as to which delays might or might not be “slight.”

Congress did provide in § 706 (b) one exception for this 90-day limitations period, when it provided that the limitations period should run for a maximum additional 120 days when there existed “a State or local law prohibiting the. unlawful employment practice alleged and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof.” Where Congress has spoken with respect to a claim much more closely related to the Title VII claim than is the contractual claim pursued under the grievance procedure, and then firmly limited the maximum possible extension of the limitations period applicable thereto, we think that all of petitioners' arguments taken together simply do not carry sufficient weight to overcome the negative implication from the language used by Congress, cf. Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S., at 461.

IV

Guy filed her charge with the EEOC on February 10, 1972, 108 days after her October 25, 1971, discharge. On March 24, 1972, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 103, extended to 180 days the time within which to file a claim with the EEOC, § 706 (e). Petitioners contend that this expanded limitations period should apply to Guy’s charge, as the occurrence she was complaining of took place within 180 days of the enactment of the 1972 amendments. We agree.

Section 14 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 113, states:

“The amendments made by this Act to section 706 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall be applicable with respect to charges pending with the Commission on the date of enactment of this Act and all charges filed thereafter.”

Respondent asserts that § 14, which was added by amendment to the bill on the floor of the House by Senator Javits, 118 Cong. Rec. 4816 (1972), was designed for the sole purpose of having the new enforcement powers given to the EEOC apply to pending charges, see letter of Feb, 14, 1972, from David L. Norman, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, to Senator Dominick, quoted in EEOC v. Christiansburg Garment Co., 376 F. Supp. 1067, 1074 (WD Va. 1974). However, the explicit statutory language used applies to all amendments made by the Act to § 706, not simply to the new enforcement provisions. As Senator Javits did not limit his remarks on the floor so as to indicate that § 14’s retroactivity was designed to apply only to the new enforcement provisions, the legislative history does not make this one of those unusual cases in which a court may infer, contrary to the language actually used, that Congress intended to so limit the scope of § 14, cf. also S. Rep. No. 91-1137, p. 31 (1970).

Respondent also contends that the amendment is not applicable to the charge filed by Guy with the EEOC, since, being untimely when filed, her charge could not have been “pending with the Commission on the date of enactment of this Act.” This reading of “pending” — confining it to charges still before the Commission and timely when filed — is not the only possible meaning of the word, is largely rebutted by the legislative history, and renders the language of § 14 virtually meaningless insofar as the enlarged limitations period is concerned. Since Congress also applied the enlarged limitations period to charges, whether or not untimely on March 24, “filed thereafter,” we should not presume Congress created this odd hiatus in retroactivity suggested by respondent unless congressional intent to do so was conveyed by language more precise than “pending,” cf. Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U. S. 522 (1972). “Pending” is simply not a term of art that unambiguously carries with it a meaning precisely suited for this situation; equally logical, for example, would be an interpretation that read “pending” to mean “filed and not yet rejected,” cf. Leg. Hist., supra, n. 16, at 1851. We hold that Congress intended the 180-day period to be applicable to charges such as that filed by Guy, where the charge was filed with the EEOC prior to March 24, 1972, and alleged a discriminatory occurrence within 180 days of the enactment of the Act.

Respondent contends, finally, that Congress was without constitutional power to revive, by enactment, an action which, when filed, is already barred by the running of a limitations period. This contention rests on an unwarrantedly broad reading of our opinion in William Danzer Co. v. Gulf & Ship Island R. Co., 268 U. S. 633 (1925). Danzer was given a narrow reading in the later case of Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U. S. 304, 312 n. 8 (1945). The latter case states the applicable constitutional test in this language:

“The Fourteenth Amendment does not make an act of state legislation void merely because it has some retrospective operation. What it does forbid is taking of life, liberty or property without due process of law. . . . Assuming that statutes of limitation, like other types of legislation, could be so manipulated that their retroactive effects would offend the Constitution, certainly it cannot be said that lifting the bar of a statute of limitation so as to restore a remedy lost through mere lapse of time is per se an offense against the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id., at 315-316.

Applying that test to this litigation, we think that Congress might constitutionally provide for retroactive application of the extended limitations period which it enacted.

We thus resolve against petitioners their first two contentions, but resolve the third in their favor. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is therefore reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Stevens agree that the expanded 180-day limitations period enacted by 86 Stat. 103 applied to Guy’s charge and would reverse the Court of Appeals on that ground without addressing the questions discussed in Parts II and III of the Court’s opinion.

       At the time of her discharge, and at the time the charge was filed with the EEOC, § 706 (d) stated, in pertinent part: “A charge under subsection (a) of this section shall be filed within ninety days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. . . .” Section 706 (d) was renumbered as §706 (e), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (e) (1970 ed., Supp. V), as a result of the 1972 amendments to the Act. Whenever § 706 (d) is cited in this opinion, it refers to the pre-1972 version of what is now §706 (e).

       Guy also alleged a cause ’of action under 42 U. S. C. § 1981. By order dated May 30, 1974, the District Court dismissed this cause of action because of a failure to meet the applicable Tennessee statute of limitations. No appeal was taken from this decision.

       The question of the tolling of Title VII’s limitations period during the pendency of grievance proceedings was noted in our opinion in
        McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U. S. 273, 277-278 (1976), but had not been decided in the lower courts, and was not presented for us to decide.

       This assertion, which is also adopted by the EEOC as amicus curiae, is premised on the proposition that “[u]se of the grievance resolution process is not an ‘appeal’ of a ‘final’ decision, but is a method of obtaining the judgment of higher management on whether the employee should be retained,” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 21; Brief for Petitioner Local 790, pp. 17-18.

       Tr. of Oral Arg. 14. Nor is there any indication that, should the grievance mechanism not be utilized, any sort of “formalized” final determination by management was required before Guy’s discharge would have been considered final. As the EEOC acknowledges, “the employer’s foremen usually can fire an individual employee such as Guy,” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19.

       Even while raising the contrary arguments in their briefs before this Court, petitioners place the October 25 discharge as the action of respondent. See, e. g., Brief for Petitioner Local 790, p. 4 (“The following day [October 25, 1971) the Company discharged her on the ground that she had not complied with procedures embodied in the collective bargaining agreement pertaining to return from leaves of absence”); Brief for Petitioner Guy 5 (“The Company discharged Guy on October 25 for having 'voluntarily quit’ ”).

       At oral argument, we were told that while this assertion was not articulated as a separate argument before the Court of Appeals, pertinent language in Moore v. Sunbeam Corp., 459 F. 2d 811 (CA7 1972), was cited to that court, Tr. of Oral Arg. 11-12. This is hardly a precise way to get an issue before a Court of Appeals, and there is no indication that the Court of Appeals recognized any such implicit contention, assuming, arguendo, that petitioners thought they were raising it.

       See also 415 U. S., at 48-49: “Title VII was designed to supplement, rather than supplant, existing laws and institutions relating to employment discrimination.” We felt that the legislative history was quite clear in this respect, see, e. g., 110 Cong. Rec. 7205, 13650-13652 (1964); H. R. 9247, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971); H. R. Rep. No. 92-238 (1971); S. Rep. No. 92-415, p. 24 (1971).

       “Conciliation and persuasion through the administrative process [e. g., Title VII], to be sure, often constitute a desirable approach to settlement of disputes based on sensitive and emotional charges of invidious employment discrimination. We recognize, too, that the filing of a lawsuit might tend to deter efforts at conciliation, that lack of success in the legal action could weaken the Commission’s efforts to induce voluntary compliance, and that a suit is privately oriented and narrow, rather than broad, in application, as successful conciliation tends to be. But these are the natural effects of the choice Congress has made available to the claimant by its conferring upon him independent administrative and judicial remedies. The choice is a valuable one,” 421 U. S., at 461.

       In no way is this a situation in which a party has “been prevented from asserting” his or her rights, Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U. S., at 429. There is no assertion that Guy was “prevented” from filing a charge with the EEOC within 90 days of October 25,1971; indeed, it is conceded and even urged that .she could have filed it the following day, had she so wished.

       We concluded in Johnson that “[o]nly where there is complete identity of the causes of action will the protections suggested by petitioner necessarily exist and will the courts have an opportunity to assess the influence of the policy of repose inherent in a limitation period,” 421 U. S., at 468 n. 14. See n. 14, infra.

       Petitioners contend that the vast majority of collective-bargaining agreements have stringent time restrictions on the resolution of disputes through the grievance stages, see, e. g., Brief for Petitioner Local 790, pp. 38-39; see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 23 n. 13.

       Even taken on its own ground, this argument is not unambiguously favorable to petitioners. If the collective-bargaining dispute-settlement procedures are as speedy as suggested, no real need for tolling has been shown. In the instant case, for example, at the conclusion of stage three of the grievance procedure, Guy still had 66 days in which to file a charge with the EEOC, and no reason has been advanced as to why this was not ample time.

       Adherence to the limitations period assures prompt notification to the employer of a charge of an alleged violation of Title VII, see § 706 (b). The grievance process assures no such comparable notice. In the instant case, the grievance alleged only an “unfair action.” Even if racial discrimination is explicitly discussed, however, the grievance procedure properly involves only contractual questions, and would but fortuitously implicate the Title VII standards, Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S., at 53-54, 56-58; see also Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S., at 467-468, n. 14. Petitioners’ arguments respecting the policies behind private resolution of labor disputes through collective bargaining, moreover, apply equally to the arbitration stage as they do to the grievance stage, cf. Emporium Capwell Co. v. Community Org., 420 U. S. 50, 66-67 (1975) ; Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., supra, at 56, 59-60; Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks, 398 U. S. 235 (1970). Yet, at the arbitration stage the assurance of but a “slight” delay is lacking.

       Indeed, the comment of Senator Javits implied precisely the opposite: “MR. JAVITS. Mr. President, this amendment would make whatever we do enact into law applicable to pending cases. The Department of Justice has requested it in a letter to the minority leader; that is my reason for offering it.” 118 Cong. Rec. 4816 (1972).

       Section 14 was stated to be designed to cover “charges filed with the Commission prior to the effective date of the Act," Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., Legislative History of Equal Employment Act of 1972, p. 1851 (Comm. Print 1972); see. also id., at 1777.

       Accordingly, we need not decide whether the enlarged limitations period also redounds to the benefit of persons who filed a charge more than 90, but less than 180, days from the date of the alleged “occurrence,” where the 180 days had run prior to March 24, 1972.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    CONNALLY v. GEORGIA
    No. 76-461.
    Decided January 10, 1977
   Per Curiam.

Appellant John Connally was indicted, tried, and convicted in the Superior Court of Walker County, Ga., for possession of marihuana in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act, Ga. Code Ann. § 79A-801 et seq. (1973). On his appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, he asserted trial error in four respects: the constitutional impropriety of the fee system governing the issuance of search warrants by justices of the peace in Georgia; the deprivation of his right of confrontation when revelation of an informer’s identity was refused; the failure to give a requested instruction on joint occupancy of premises; and the failure to enter a judgment of acquittal because of an alleged absence of proof of the type of cannabis involved. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, with two justices dissenting (one on the first issue) and one justice concurring as to the second, third, and fourth issues and in the judgment. 237 Ga. 203, 227 S. E. 2d 352 (1976). The appellant, on direct appeal here, raises the first two questions. We deem the challenge to the warrant procedure worthy of consideration.

Pursuant to a search warrant issued by a justice of the peace, appellant's house was raided and marihuana found there was seized. Connally was arrested.. At his trial he moved to suppress the evidence so seized on the ground that the justice who had issued the warrant was not “a neutral and detached magistrate” because he had a pecuniary interest in issuing the warrant. The trial court denied that motion, and the Supreme Court of Georgia, in affirming, rejected the constitutional challenge.

Under Ga. Code Ann. § 24-1601 (1971), the fee for the issuance of a search warrant by a Georgia justice of the peace “shall be” $5, “and it shall be lawful for said [justice] of the peace to charge and collect the same.” If the requested warrant is refused, the justice of the peace collects no fee for reviewing and denying the application. The fee so charged apparently goes into county funds and from there to the issuing justice as compensation.

At a pretrial hearing in Connally's case, the issuing justice testified on cross-examination that he was a justice primarily because he was “interested in a livelihood,” Record 502; that he received no salary, ibid.; that his compensation was “directly dependent on how many warrants” he issued, ibid.; that since January 1, 1973, he had issued “some 10,000” warrants for arrests or searches, ibid.; and that he had no legal background other than attendance at seminars and reading law, id., at 506-508, 512-515.

Fifty years ago, in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927), the Court considered state statutes that permitted a charge of violating the State’s prohibition laws to be tried without a jury before a village mayor. Any fine imposed was divided between the State and the village. The latter’s share was used to hire attorneys and detectives to arrest offenders and prosecute them before the mayor. When the mayor convicted, he received fees and costs, and these were in addition to his salary. The Court, in an opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Taft, unanimously held that subjecting a defendant to trial before a judge having “a direct, personal, pecuniary interest in convicting the defendant,” that is, in the $12 of fees and costs imposed, id., at 523, 531, effected a denial of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This approach was reiterated in Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U. S. 57 (1972). There, an Ohio statute authorized mayors to sit as judges of ordinance violations and certain traffic offenses. The petitioner was so convicted and fined by the mayor of Monroeville. Although the mayor had no direct personal financial stake in the outcome of cases before him, a major portion of the village’s income was derived from the fines, fees, and costs imposed in the mayor’s court. This Court, id., at 59-60, cited Tumey and repeated the test formulated in that case, namely, “whether the may- or’s situation is one ‘which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused ....’” 409 U. S., at 60. Dugan v. Ohio, 277 U. S. 61 (1928), where a mayor had judicial, functions but only “very limited executive authority,” and the executive power rested in a city manager and a commission, was distinguished as a situation where “the Mayor’s relationship to the finances and financial policy of the city was too remote to warrant a presumption of bias toward conviction in prosecutions before him as [a] judge,” 409 U. S., at 60-61, and the possibility of a later de novo trial in another court was held to be of no constitutional relevance because the defendant was “entitled to a neutral and detached judge in the first instance.” Id., at 61-62.

The present case, of course, is not precisely the same as Tumey or as Ward, but the principle of those cases, we conclude, is applicable to the Georgia system for the issuance of search warrants by justices of the peace. The justice is not salaried. He is paid, so far as search warrants are concerned, by receipt of the fee prescribed by statute for his issuance of the warrant, and he receives nothing for his denial of the warrant. His financial welfare, therefore, is enhanced by positive action and is not enhanced by negative action. The situation, again, is one which offers “a possible temptation to the average man as a judge ... or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused.” It is, in other words, another situation where the defendant is subjected to what surely is judicial action by an officer of a court who has “a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest” in his conclusion to issue or to deny the warrant. See Bennett v. Cottingham, 290 F. Supp. 759, 762-763 (ND Ala. 1968), aff’d, 393 U. S. 317 (1969).

Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U. S. 345 (1972), does not weigh to the contrary. The issue there centered in the qualification of municipal court clerks to issue arrest warrants for breaches of ordinances. The Court held that the clerks, although laymen, worked within the judicial branch under the supervision of judges and were qualified to determine the existence of probable cause. They were, therefore, “neutral and detached magistrates for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.” Id., at 346. There was no element of personal financial gain in the clerks’ issuance or nonissuance of arrest warrants. Cf. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 449-453 (1971).

We disagree with the Supreme Court of Georgia’s rulings, 237 Ga., at 205-206, 227 S. E. 2d, at 354-355, that the amount of the search warrant fee is de minimis in the present context, that the unilateral character of the justice’s adjudication of probable cause distinguishes the present case from Turney, and that, instead, this case equates with Bevan v. Krieger, 289 U. S. 459, 465-466 (1933), where a notary public’s fee for taking a deposition was measured by the folios of testimony taken.

We therefore hold that the issuance of the search warrant by the justice of the peace in Connally’s case effected a violation of the protections afforded him by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

       Cf. Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465 (1976).

       See Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 14 (1948); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 453 (1971); Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U. S. 345, 350 (1972).

       “Q In the case of a search warrant, I believe you receive compensation ultimately in the amount of $5.00, if you issue the warrant, do you not?
      “A That’s true.

        “Q If you choose not to issue the warrant, what compensation do you receive?
      “A I don’t know.
      “Q You receive no compensation?
      “A Well, I never have, I’ll put it that way.
      “Q Now with respect to issuing the search warrant, Mr. Murphy, does the $5.00, since that’s the only way you get paid, does that enter your mind when you’re sitting there contemplating whether or not to issue a search warrant?
      “A It has.
      “Q As a matter of fact, I believe you quite honestly and candidly told me on the day we had that preliminary hearing up here, I believe that was on, the best I can recall, it was on the 18th of May, that you would be a liar if you said it didn’t enter your mind?
      “A That’s what I said.
      “Q Is that true now, you would be [a] liar if you said it didn’t enter your mind?
      “A It’s only human nature to me.
      “Q Okay. Now, I believe you said you had been a J. P. since January 1st of 1973, is that correct?

        “A Yes, sir.
      “Q All right. Now, since January — you have to run for that office, or is it an appointed office?
      “A Yes sir, it’s an elected office.
      “Q Well, you ran for the office for the purpose of having employment and earning a living, is that correct?
      “A That’s part of it.
      “Q Of course, you like in other people’s motivations, primarily you were interested in a livelihood?
      “A True.
      “Q Now do you support yourself with the salary or with the fees that you receive in a J. P. system down here, or as J. P.?

        “A Uh huh, yes sir.
      “Q And you receive no salary at all, so that your compensation is directly dependent on how many warrants you issue, is that correct?

        “A That’s right.
      “Q Now, since January 1st, 1973, I believe you told me the other day, and let me ask you again, you have issued some 10,000 warrants of the arrest — either arrest or search warrants, is that correct?
      “A That’s pretty close, total warrants.
      “Q Okay. Total warrants?
      “A Criminal warrants.
      “Q That would be right about 10,000 of them?

        “A Uh huh.
      “Q Now with respect to the qualifications that you have for your office, of course, the people of Walker County elected you and under the law that would qualify you, but I believe the law prescribes some qualifications that you must have prior to the time you are elected, what are those qualifications?
      “A You have to be a resident of the militia district in which you’re running for that office, registered voter, it might sound stupid but that’s all I remember.
      “Q Okay. Now of course, the people have selected you as the J. P. for this militia district, and you have the qualifications that you mentioned that you are a resident and of age and so on and so forth, other than those, do you have any background, legal background or other background with respect to the instruments and issuance of warrants?

        “A No, sir.
      “Q So, the qualifications that you have mentioned are your sole qualifications for holding your job, is that correct?
      “A That’s right.
      “Q Okay.
      “A Up to the time I was elected.
      "MR. DANIEL: Okay, sir, that’s all I have.
      “THE COURT: Have you done anything since you were elected to improve any qualifications that might be necessary?
      “THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
      “THE COURT: What have you done?
      “THE WITNESS: I have attended several training seminars sponsored by our J. P. State Association, as a matter of fact, I’m leaving this afternoon if I can get out of here to go to a 2-day training seminar in Warner Robbins, Georgia, sponsored by the same State Association.
      “I’ve bought one manual, study course from Judson-Pace at my own expense and attempted to learn a little bit more about the duties.” Record 499-500, 501-502, 506-508.


author: Me. Justice Powell Mr. Justice Marshall, Me. Justice White,

text:
    VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS et al. v. METROPOLITAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. et al.
    No. 75-616.
    Argued October 13, 1976
    Decided January 11, 1977

      Jack M. Siegel argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners.

      F. Willis Caruso argued the cause for respondents. With him on the briefs were Carol M. Petersen and Robert O. Schwemm.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Conrad N. Bagne for the American Society of Planning Officials, and by Abe Portas and Stephen C. Shamberg for the League of Women Voters of the United States et al.

   Me. Justice Powell

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1971 respondent Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (MHDC) applied to petitioner, the Village - of Arlington Heights, Ill., for the rezoning of a 15-acre parcel from single-family to multiple-family classification. Using federal financial assistance, MHDC planned to build 190 clustered townhouse units for low- and moderate-income tenants. The Village denied the rezoning request. MHDC, joined by other plaintiffs who are also respondents here, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. They alleged that the denial was racially discriminatory and that it violated, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 81, 42 U. S. C. § 3601 et seq. Following a bench trial, the District Court entered judgment for the Village, 373 F. Supp. 208 (1974), and respondents appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the “ultimate effect” of the denial was racially discriminatory, and that the refusal to rezone therefore violated the Fourteenth Amendment. 517 F. 2d 409 (1975). We granted the Village’s petition for certiorari, 423 U. S. 1030 (1975), and now reverse.

Arlington Heights is a suburb of Chicago, located about 26 miles northwest of the downtown Loop area. Most of the land' in Arlington Heights is zoned for detached single-family homes, and this is in fact the prevailing land use. The Village experienced substantial growth during the 1960’s, but, like other communities in northwest Cook County, its population of racial minority groups remained quite low. According to the 1970 census, only 27 of the Village’s 64,000 residents were black.

The Clerics of St. Viator, a religious order (Order), own an 80-acre parcel just east of the center of Arlington Heights. Part of the site is occupied by the Viatorian high school, and part by the Order’s three-story novitiate building, which houses dormitories and a Montessori school. Much of the site, however, remains vacant. Since 1959, when the Village first adopted a zoning ordinance, all the land surrounding the Viatorian property has been zoned R-3, a single-family specification with relatively small minimum lot-size requirements. On three sides of the Viatorian land there are single-family homes just across a street; to the east the Viatorian property directly adjoins the backyards of other single-family homes.

The Order decided in 1970 to devote some of its land to low- and moderate-income housing. Investigation revealed that the most expeditious way to build such housing was to work through a nonprofit developer experienced in the use of federal housing subsidies under § 236 of the National Housing Act, 48 Stat. 1246, as added and amended, 12 U. S. C. § 1715z-l.

MHDC is such a developer. It was organized in 1968 by several prominent Chicago citizens for the purpose of building low- and moderate-income housing, throughout the Chicago area. In 1970 MHDC was in the process of building one § 236 development near Arlington Heights and already had provided some federally assisted housing on a smaller scale in other parts of the Chicago area.

After some negotiation, MHDC and the Order entered into a 99-year lease and an accompanying agreement of sale covering a 15-acre site in the southeast corner of the Viatorian property. MHDC became the lessee immediately, but the sale agreement was contingent upon MHDC's securing zoning clearances from the Village and § 236 housing assistance from the Federal Government. If MHDC proved unsuccessful in securing either, both the lease and the contract of sale would lapse. The agreement established a bargain purchase price of $300,000, low enough to comply with federal limitations governing land-acquisition costs for § 236 housing.

MHDC engaged an architect and proceeded with the project, to be known as Lincoln Green. The plans called for 20 two-story buildings with a total of 190 units, each unit having its own private entrance from the outside. One hundred of the units would have a single bedroom, thought likely to attract elderly citizens. The remainder would have two, three, or four bedrooms. A large portion of the site would remain open, with shrubs and trees to screen the homes abutting the property to the east.

The planned development did not conform to the Village's zoning ordinance and could not be built unless Arlington Heights rezoned the parcel to R-5, its multiple-family housing classification. Accordingly, MHDC filed with the Village Plan Commission a petition for rezoning, accompanied by supporting materials describing the development and specifying that it would be subsidized under § 236. The materials made clear that one requirement under § 236 is an affirmative marketing plan designed to assure that a subsidized development is racially integrated. MHDC also submitted studies demonstrating the need for housing of this type and analyzing the probable impact of the development. To prepare for the hearings before the Plan Commission and to assure compliance with the Village building code, fire regulations, and related requirements, MHDC consulted with the Village staff for preliminary review of the development. The parties have stipulated that every change recommended during such consultations was incorporated into the plans.

During the spring of 1971, the Plan Commission considered the proposal at a series of three public meetings, which drew large crowds. Although many of those attending were quite vocal and demonstrative in opposition to Lincoln Green, a number of individuals and representatives of community groups spoke in support of rezoning. Some of the comments, both from opponents and supporters, addressed what was referred to as the “social issue” — the desirability or undesirability of introducing at this location in Arlington Heights low- and moderate-income housing, housing that would probably be racially integrated.

Many of the opponents, however, focused on the zoning aspects of the petition, stressing two arguments. First, the area always had been zoned single-family, and the neighboring citizens had built or purchased there in reliance on that classification. Rezoning threatened to cause a measurable drop in property value for neighboring sites. Second, the Village’s apartment policy, adopted by the Village Board in 1962 and amended in 1970, called for R-5 zoning primarily to serve as a buffer between single-family development and land uses thought incompatible, such as commercial or manufacturing districts. Lincoln Green did not meet this requirement, as it adjoined no commercial or manufacturing district.

At the close of the third meeting, the Plan Commission adopted a motion to recommend to the Village’s Board of Trustees that it deny the request. The motion stated: “While the need for low and moderate income housing may exist in Arlington Heights or its environs, the Plan Commission would be derelict in recommending it at the proposed location.” Two members voted against the motion and submitted a minority report, stressing that in their view the change to accommodate Lincoln Green represented “good zoning.” The Village Board met on September 28, 1971, to consider MHDC’s request and the recommendation of the Plan Commission., After a public hearing, the Board denied the rezoning by a 6-1 vote.

The following June MHDC and three Negro individuals filed this lawsuit against the Village, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. A second nonprofit corporation and an individual of Mexican-American descent intervened as plaintiffs. The trial resulted in a judgment for petitioners. Assuming that MHDC had standing to bring the suit, the District Court held that the petitioners were not motivated by racial discrimination or intent to discriminate against low-income groups when they denied rezoning, but rather by a desire “to protect property values and the integrity of the Village’s zoning plan.” 373 F. Supp., at 211. The District Court concluded also that the denial would not have a racially discriminatory effect.

A divided Court of Appeals reversed. It first approved the District Court’s finding that the defendants were motivated by a concern for the integrity of the zoning plan, rather than by racial discrimination. Deciding whether their refusal to rezone would have discriminatory effects was more complex. The court observed that the refusal would have a disproportionate impact on blacks. Based upon family income, blacks constituted 40% of those Chicago area residents who were eligible to become tenants of Lincoln Green, although they composed a far lower percentage of total area population. The court reasoned, however, that under our decision in James v. Valtierra, 402 U. S. 137 (1971), such a disparity in racial impact alone does not call for strict scrutiny of a municipality’s decision that prevents the construction of the low-cost housing.

There was another level to the court’s analysis of allegedly discriminatory results. Invoking language from Kennedy Park Homes Assn. v. City of Lackawanna, 436 F. 2d 108, 112 (CA2 1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 1010 (1971), the Court of Appeals ruled that the denial of rezoning must be examined in light of its “historical context and ultimate effect.” 517 F. 2d, at 413. Northwest Cook County was enjoying rapid growth in employment opportunities and population, but it continued to exhibit a high degree of residential segregation. The court held that Arlington Heights could not simply ignore this problem. Indeed, it found that the Village had been “exploiting” the situation by allowing itself to become a nearly all-white community. Id., at 414. The Village had no other current plans for building low- and moderate-income housing, and no other R-5 parcels in the Village were available to MHDC at an economically feasible price.

Against this background, the Court of Appeals ruled that the denial of the Lincoln Green proposal had racially discriminatory effects and could be tolerated only if it served compelling interests. Neither the buffer policy nor the desire to protect property values met this exacting standard. The court therefore concluded that the denial violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

II

At the outset, petitioners challenge the respondents’ standing to bring the suit. It is not clear that this challenge was pressed in the Court of Appeals, but since our jurisdiction to decide the case is implicated, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U. S. 411, 421 (1969) (plurality opinion), we shall consider it.

In Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490 (1975), a case similar in some respects to this one, we reviewed the constitutional limitations and prudential considerations that guide a court in determining a party’s standing, and we need not repeat that discussion here. The essence of the standing question, in its constitutional dimension, is “whether the plaintiff has 'alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy’ as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court’s remedial powers on his behalf.” Id., at 498-499, quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962). The plaintiff must show that he himself is injured by the challenged action of the defendant. The injury may be indirect, see United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S. 669, 688 (1973), but the complaint must indicate that the injury is indeed fairly traceable to the defendant’s acts or omissions. Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S. 26, 41-42 (1976); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 498 (1974); Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 617 (1973).

A

Here there can be little doubt that MHDC meets the constitutional standing requirements. The challenged action of the petitioners stands as an absolute barrier to constructing the housing MHDC had contracted to place on the Viatorian site. If MHDC secures the injunctive relief it seeks, that barrier will be removed. An injunction would not, of course, guarantee that Lincoln Green will be built. MHDC would still have to secure financing, qualify for federal subsidies, and carry through with construction. But all housing developments are subject to some extent to similar uncertainties. When a project is as detailed and specific as Lincoln Green, a court is not required to engage in undue speculation as a predicate for finding that the plaintiff has the requisite personal stake in the controversy. MHDC has shown an injury to itself that is “likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., supra, at 38.

Petitioners nonethless appear to argue that MHDC lacks standing because it has suffered no economic injury. MHDC, they point out, is not the owner of the property in question. Its contract of purchase is contingent upon securing rezoning. MHDC owes the owners nothing if rezoning is denied.

We cannot accept petitioners’ argument. In the first place, it is inaccurate to say that MHDC suffers no economic injury from a refusal to rezone, despite the contingency provisions in its contract. MHDC has expended thousands of dollars on the plans for Lincoln Green and on the studies submitted to the Village in support of the petition for rezoning. Unless rezoning is granted, many of these plans and studies will be worthless even if MHDC finds another site at an equally attractive price.

Petitioners’ argument also misconceives our standing requirements. It has long been clear that economic injury is not the only kind of injury that can support a plaintiff’s standing. United States v. SCRAP, supra, at 686-687; Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 734 (1972); Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 154 (1970). MHDC is a nonprofit corporation. Its interest in building Lincoln Green stems not from a desire for economic gain, but rather from an interest in making suitable low-cost housing available in areas where such housing is scarce. This is not mere abstract concern about a problem of general interest. See Sierra Club v. Morton, supra, at 739. The specific project MHDC intends to build, whether or not it will generate profits, provides that “essential dimension of specificity” that informs judicial decisionmaking. Schlesinger v. Reservists to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208, 221 (1974).

B

Clearly MHDC has met the constitutional requirements, and it therefore has standing to assert its own rights. Foremost among them is MHDC’s right to be free of arbitrary or irrational zoning actions. See Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365 (1926); Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U. S. 183 (1928); Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U. S. 1 (1974). But the heart of this litigation has never been the claim that the Village’s decision fails the generous Euclid test, recently reaffirmed in Belle Terre. Instead it has been the claim that the Village’s refusal to rezone discriminates against racial minorities in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a corporation, MHDC has no racial identity and cannot be the direct target of the petitioners’ alleged discrimination. In the ordinary case, a party is denied standing to assert the rights of third persons. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S., at 499. But we need not decide whether the circumstances of this case would justify departure from that prudential limitation and permit MHDC to assert the constitutional rights of its prospective minority tenants. See Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249 (1953); cf. Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, 396 U. S. 229, 237 (1969); Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 72-73 (1917). For we have at least one individual plaintiff who has demonstrated standing to assert these rights as his own.

Respondent Ransom, a Negro, works at the Honeywell factory in Arlington Heights and lives approximately 20 miles away in Evanston in a 5-room house with his mother and his son. The complaint alleged that he seeks and would qualify for the housing MHDC wants to build in Arlington Heights. Ransom testified at trial that if Lincoln Green were built he would probably move there, since it is closer to his job.

The injury Ransom asserts is that his quest for housing nearer his employment has been thwarted by official action that is racially discriminatory. If a court grants the relief he seeks, there is at least a “substantial probability,” Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 504, that the Lincoln Green project will materialize, affording Ransom the housing opportunity he desires in Arlington Heights. His is not a generalized grievance. Instead, as we suggested in Warth, supra, at 507, 508 n. 18, it focuses on a particular project and is not dependent on speculation about the possible actions of third parties not before the court. See id., at 505; Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S., at 41-42. Unlike the individual plaintiffs in Warth, Ransom has adequately averred an “actionable causal relationship” between Arlington Heights’ zoning practices and his asserted injury. Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 507. We therefore proceed to the merits.

Ill

Our decision last Term in Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229 (1976), made it clear that official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact. “Disproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination.” Id., at 242. Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Although some contrary indications may be drawn from some of our cases, the holding in Davis reaffirmed a principle well established in a variety of contexts. E. g., Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., 413 U. S. 189, 208 (1973) (schools); Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U. S. 52, 56-57 (1964) (election districting); Akins v. Texas, 325 U. S. 398, 403-404 (1945) (jury selection).

Davis does not require a plaintiff to prove that the challenged action rested solely on racially discriminatory purposes. Rarely can it be said that a legislature or administrative body operating under a broad mandate made a decision motivated solely by a single concern, or even that a particular purpose was the “dominant” or “primary” one. In fact, it is because legislators and administrators are properly concerned with balancing numerous competing considerations that courts refrain from reviewing the merits of their decisions, absent a showing of arbitrariness or irrationality. But racial discrimination is not just another competing consideration. When there is a proof that a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision, this judicial deference is no longer justified.

Determining whether invidious discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor demands a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available. The impact of the official action- — whether it “bears more heavily on one race than another,” Washington v. Davis, supra, at 242 — may provide an important starting point. Sometimes a clear pattern, unexplainable on grounds other than race, emerges from the effect of the state action even when the governing legislation appears neutral on its face. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (1886); Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347 (1915); Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268 (1939); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960). The evidentiary inquiry is then relatively easy. But such cases are- rare. Absent a pattern as stark as that in Gomillion or Yick Wo, impact alone is not determinative, and the Court must look to other evidence.

The historical background of the decision is one evidentiarysource, particularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes. See Lane v. Wilson, supra; Griffin v. School Board, 377 U. S. 218 (1964); Davis v. Schnell, 81 F. Supp. 872 (SD Ala.), aff’d per curiam, 336 U. S. 933 (1949); cf. Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver Colo., supra, at 207. The specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision also may shed some light on the decisionmaker’s purposes. Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U. S. 369, 373-376 (1967); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 250 (1936). For example, if the property involved here always had been zoned R-5 but suddenly was changed to R-3 when the town learned of MHDC’s plans to erect integrated housing, we would have a far different case. Departures from the normal procedural sequence also might afford evidence that improper purposes are playing a role. Substantive departures too may be relevant, particularly if the factors usually considered important by the decision-maker strongly favor a decision contrary to the one reached.

The legislative or administrative history may be highly relevant, especially where there are contemporary statements by members of the decisionmaking body, minutes of its meetings, or reports. In some extraordinary instances the members might be called to the stand at trial to testify concerning the purpose of the official action, although even then such testimony frequently will be barred by privilege. See Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 (1951); United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 705 (1974); 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2371 (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961).

The foregoing summary identifies, without purporting to be exhaustive, subjects of proper inquiry in determining whether racially discriminatory intent existed.. With these in mind, we now address the case before us.

IV

This case was tried in the District Court and reviewed in the Court of Appeals before our decision in Washington v. Davis, supra. The respondents proceeded on the erroneous theory that the Village’s refusal to rezone carried a racially discriminatory effect and was, without more, unconstitutional. But both courts below understood that at least part of their function was to examine the purpose underlying the decision. In making its findings on this issue, the District Court noted that some of the opponents of Lincoln Green who spoke at the various hearings might have been motivated by opposition to minority groups. The court held, however, that the evidence “does not warrant the conclusion that this motivated the defendants.” 373 F. Supp., at 211.

On appeal the Court of Appeals focused primarily on respondents’ claim that the Village’s buffer policy had not been consistently applied and was being invoked with a strictness here that could only demonstrate some other underlying motive. The court concluded that the buffer policy, though not always applied with perfect consistency, had on several occasions formed the basis for the Board’s decision to deny other rezoning proposals. “The evidence does not necessitate a finding that Arlington Heights administered this policy in a discriminatory manner.” 517. F. 2d, at 412. The Court of Appeals therefore approved the District Court’s findings concerning the Village’s purposes in denying rezoning to MHDC.

We also have reviewed the evidence. The impact of the Village’s decision does arguably bear more heavily on racial minorities. Minorities constitute 18% of the Chicago area population, and 40% of the income groups said to be eligible for Lincoln Green. But there is little about the sequence of events leading up to the decision that would spark suspicion. The area around the Viatorian property has been zoned R-3 since 1959, the year when Arlington Heights first adopted a zoning map. Single-family homes surround the 80-acre site, and the Village is undeniably committed to single-family homes as its dominant residential land use. The rezoning request progressed according to the usual procedures. The Plan Commission even scheduled two additional hearings, at least in part to accommodate MHDC and permit it to supplement its presentation with answers to questions generated at the first hearing.

The statements by the Plan Commission and Village Board members, as reflected in the official minutes, focused almost exclusively on the zoning aspects of the MHDC petition, and the zoning factors on which they relied are not novel criteria in the Village’s rezoning decisions. There is no reason to doubt that there has been reliance by some neighboring property owners on the maintenance of single-family zoning in the vicinity. The Village originally adopted its buffer policy long before MHDC entered the picture and has applied the policy too consistently for us to infer discriminatory purpose from its application in this case. Finally, MHDC called one member of the Village Board to the stand at trial. Nothing in her testimony supports an inference of invidious purpose.

In sum, the evidence does not warrant overturning the concurrent findings of both courts below. Respondents simply failed to carry their burden of proving that discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in the Village’s decision. This conclusion ends the constitutional inquiry. The Court of Appeals’ further finding that the Village’s decision carried a discriminatory “ultimate effect” is without independent constitutional significance.

V

Respondents’ complaint also alleged that the refusal to rezone violated the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U. S. C. § 3601 et seq. They continue to urge here that a zoning decision made by a public body may, and that petitioners’ action did, violate § 3604 or § 3617. The Court of Appeals, however, proceeding in a somewhat unorthodox fashion, did not decide the statutory question. We remand the case for further consideration of respondents’ statutory claims.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Mr. Justice Marshall,

with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in Parts I-III of the Court’s opinion. However, I believe the proper result would be to remand this entire case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229 (1976), and today’s opinion. The Court of Appeals is better situated than this Court both to reassess the significance of the evidence developed below in light of the standards we have set forth and to determine whether the interests of justice require further District Court proceedings directed toward those standards.

Me. Justice White,

dissenting.

■ The Court reverses the judgment of the Court of Appeals because it finds, after re-examination of the evidence supporting the concurrent findings below, that “ [respondents ... failed to carry their burden of proving that discriminatory purpose -was a motivating factor in the Village’s decision.’’ Ante, at 270. The Court reaches this result by interpreting our decision in Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229 (1976), and applying it to this case, notwithstanding that the Court of Appeals rendered its decision in this case before Washington v. Davis was handed down, and thus did not have the benefit of our decision when it found a Fourteenth Amendment violation.

The Court gives no reason for its failure to follow our usual practice in this situation of vacating the judgment below and remanding in order to permit the lower court to reconsider its ruling in light of our intervening decision. The Court’s articulation of a legal standard nowhere mentioned in Davis indicates that it feels that the application of Davis to these facts calls for substantial analysis. If this is true, we would do better to allow the Court of Appeals to attempt that analysis in the first instance. Given that the Court deems it necessary to re-examine the evidence in the case in light of the legal standard it adopts, a remand is especially appropriate. As the cases relied upon by the Court indicate, the primary function of this Court is not to review the evidence supporting findings of the lower courts. See, e. g., Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U. S. 52, 56-57 (1964); Akins v. Texas, 325 U. S. 398, 402 (1945). A further justification for remanding on the constitutional issue is that a remand is required in any event on respondents’ Fair Housing Act claim, 42 U. S. C. § 3601 et seq., not yet addressed by the Court of Appeals. While conceding that a remand is necessary because of the Court of Appeals’ “unorthodox” approach of deciding the constitutional issue without reaching the statutory claim, ante, at 271, the Court refuses to allow the Court of Appeals to reconsider its constitutional holding in light of Davis should it become necessary to reach that issue.

Even if I were convinced that it was proper for the Court to reverse the judgment below on the basis of an intervening decision of this Court and after a re-examination of concurrent findings of fact below, I believe it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to embark on a lengthy discussion of the standard for proving the racially discriminatory purpose required by Davis for a Fourteenth Amendment violation. The District Court found that the Village was motivated “by a legitimate desire to protect property values and the integrity of the Village’s zoning plan.” The Court of Appeals accepted this finding as not clearly erroneous, and the Court quite properly refuses to overturn it on review here. There is thus no need for this Court to list various “evidentiary sources” or “subjects of proper inquiry” in determining whether a racially discriminatory purpose existed.

I would vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for consideration of the statutory issue and, if necessary, for consideration of the constitutional issue in light of Washington v. Davis.

       Respondents named as defendants both the Village and a number of its officials, sued in their official capacity. The latter were the Mayor, the Village Manager, the Director of Building and Zoning, and the entire Village Board of Trustees. Eor convenience, we will occasionally refer to all the petitioners collectively as “the Village.”

       Section 236 provides for “interest reduction payments” to owners of rental housing projects which meet the Act’s requirements, if the savings are passed on to the tenants in accordance with a rather complex formula. Qualifying owners effectively pay 1% interest on money borrowed to construct, rehabilitate, or purchase their properties. (Section 236 has been amended frequently in minor respects since this litigation began. See 12 U. S. C. § 1715z-l (1970 ed., Supp. V), and the Housing Authorization Act of 1976, § 4, 90 Stat. 1070.)
      New commitments under § 236 were suspended in 1973 by executive decision, and they have not been revived. Projects which formerly could claim § 236 assistance, however, will now generally be eligible for aid under § 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended by § 201 (a) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U. S. C. § 1437f (1970 ed., Supp. V), and by the Housing Authorization Act of 1976, § 2, 90 Stat. 1068. Under the § 8 program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development contracts to pay the owner of the housing units a sum which will make up the difference between a fair market rent for the area and the amount contributed by the low-income tenant. The eligible tenant family pays between 15% and 25% of its gross income for rent. Respondents indicated at oral argument that, despite the demise of the § 236 program, construction of the MHDC project could proceed under § 8 if zoning clearance is now granted.

       The individual plaintiffs sought certification of the action as a class action pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 but the District Court declined to certify. 373 F. Supp. 208, 209 (1974).

       A different District Judge had heard early motions in the case. He had sustained the complaint against a motion to- dismiss for lack of standing, and the judge who finally decided the case said he found “no need to reexamine [the predecessor judge’s] conclusions” in this respect. Ibid.

       Nor is there reason to subject the Village’s action to more stringent review simply because it involves respondents’ interest in securing housing. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S. 56, 73-74 (1972). See generally San Antonio School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 18-39 (1973).

       This language apparently derived from our decision in Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U. S. 369, 373 (1967) (quoting from the opinion of the California Supreme Court in the case then under review).

         Petitioners suggest that the suspension of the § 236 housing-assistance program makes it impossible for MHDC to carry out its proposed project and therefore deprives MHDC of standing. The District Court also expressed doubts about MHDC’s position in the case in light of the suspension. 373 F. Supp., at 211. Whether termination of all available assistance programs would preclude standing is not a matter we need to decide, in view of the current likelihood that subsidies may be secured under § 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. See n. 2, supra.

       Petitioners contend that MHDC lacks standing to pursue its claim here because a contract purchaser whose contract is contingent upon rezoning cannot contest a zoning decision in the Illinois courts. Under the law of Illinois, only the owner of the property has standing to pursue such an action. Clark Oil & Refining Corp. v. City of Evanston, 23 Ill. 2d 48, 177 N. E. 2d 191 (1961); but see Solomon v. City of Evanston, 29 Ill. App. 3d 782, 331 N. E. 2d 380 (1975).
      State law of standing, however, does not govern such determinations in the federal courts. The constitutional and prudential considerations canvassed at length in Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490 (1975), respond to concerns that are peculiarly federal in nature. Illinois may choose to close its courts to applicants for rezoning unless they have an interest more direct than MHDC’s, but this choice does not necessarily disqualify MHDC from seeking relief in federal courts for an asserted injury to its federal rights.

       Because of Bie presence of this plaintiff, we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate''plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit.

        Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U. S. 217, 225 (1971); Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 407 U. S. 451, 461-462 (1972); cf. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 381-386 (1968). See discussion in Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S., at 242-244.

       In McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U. S. 263, 276-277 (1973), in a somewhat different context, we observed:
      “The search for legislative purpose is often elusive enough, Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U. S. 217 (1971), without a requirement that primacy be ascertained. Legislation is frequently multipurposed: the removal of even a 'subordinate’ purpose may shift altogether the consensus of legislative judgment supporting the statute.”

       For a scholarly discussion of legislative motivation, see Brest, Palmer v. Thompson: An Approach to the Problem of Unconstitutional Legislative Motive, 1971 Sup. Ct. Rev. 95, 116-118.

       Several of our jury-selection cases fall into this category. Because of the nature of the jury-selection task, however, we have permitted a finding of constitutional violation even when the statistical pattern does not approach the extremes of Yick Wo or Gomillion. See, e. g., Turner v. Fouche, 396 U. S. 346, 359 (1970); Sims v. Georgia, 389 U. S. 404, 407 (1967).

       This is not to say that a consistent pattern of official racial discrimination is a necessary predicate to a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. A single invidiously discriminatory governmental act — in the exercise of the zoning power as elsewhere — would not necessarily be immunized by the absence of such discrimination in the making of other comparable decisions. See City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U. S. 358, 378 (1975).

       In many instances, to recognize the limited probative value of disproportionate impact is merely to acknowledge the “heterogeneity” of the Nation’s population. Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535, 548 (1972); see also Washington v. Davis, supra, at 248.

       See, e. g., Progress Development Corp. v. Mitchell, 286 F. 2d 222 (CA7 1961) (park board allegedly condemned plaintiffs’ land for a park upon learning that the homes plaintiffs were erecting there would be sold under a marketing plan designed to assure integration); Kennedy Park Homes Assn. v. City of Lackawanna, 436 F. 2d 108 (CA2 1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 1010 (1971) (town declared moratorium on new subdivisions and rezoned area for parkland shortly after learning of plaintiffs’ plans to build low-income housing). To the extent that the decision in Kennedy Park Homes rested solely on a finding of discriminatory impact, we have indicated our disagreement. Washington v. Davis, supra, at 244-245.

       See Dailey v. City of Lawton, 425 F. 2d 1037 (CA10 1970). The plaintiffs in Dailey planned to build low-income housing on the site of a former school that they had purchased. The city refused to rezone the land from PF, its public facilities classification, to R-4, high-density residential. All the surrounding area was zoned R-4, and both the present and the former planning director for the city testified that there was no reason “from a zoning standpoint” why the land should not be classified. R-4. Based on this and other evidence, the Court of Appeals ruled that “the record sustains the [District Court’s] holding of racial motivation and of arbitrary and unreasonable action.” Id., at 1040.

       This Court has recognized, ever since Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 130-131 (1810), that judicial inquiries into legislative or executive motivation represent a substantial intrusion into the workings of other branches of government. Placing a decisionmaker on the stand is therefore “usually to be avoided.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 420 (1971). The problems involved have prompted a good deal of scholarly commentary. See Tussman & tenBroek, The Equal Protection of the Laws, 37 Calif. L. Rev. 341, 356-361 (1949); A. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch 208-221 (1962); Ely, Legislative and Administrative Motivation in Constitutional Law, 79 Yale L. J. 1205 (1970); Brest, supra, n. 12.

       Respondents have made much of one apparent procedural departure. The parties stipulated that the Village Planner, the staff member whose primary responsibility covered zoning and planning matters, was never asked for his written or oral opinion of the rezoning request. The omission does seem curious, but respondents failed to prove at trial what role the Planner customarily played in rezoning decisions, or whether his opinion would be relevant to respondents’ claims.

       Respondents complain that the District Court unduly limited their efforts to prove that the Village Board acted for discriminatory purposes, since it forbade questioning Board members about their motivation at the time they cast their votes. We perceive no abuse of discretion in the circumstances of this case, even if such an inquiry into motivation would otherwise have been proper. See n. 18, supra. Respondents were allowed, both during the discovery phase and at trial, to question Board members fully about materials and'information available to them at the time of decision. In light of respondents’ repeated insistence that it was effect and not motivation which would make out a constitutional violation, the District Court’s action was not improper.

       Proof that the decision by the Village was motivated in part by a racially discriminatory purpose would not necessarily have required invalidation of the challenged decision. Such proof would, however, have shifted to the Village the burden of establishing that the same decision would have resulted even had the impermissible purpose not been considered. If this were established, the complaining party in a case of this kind no longer fairly could attribute the injury complained of to improper consideration of a discriminatory purpose. In such circumstances, there would be no justification for judicial interference with the challenged decision. But in this case respondents failed to make the required threshold showing. See Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle, post, p. 274.