Case Citator › Armstrong v. Davis

Armstrong v. Davis

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
275 F.3d 849
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
113 of 113
Citing cases (total)
429
Treatment dates
2005
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Armstrong v. Davis remains abrogated on one issue. All 113 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The one confirmed treatment is listed below: Johnson v. California rejected Turner deference for racial classifications in prisons, displacing Armstrong on that distinct issue. The other citing opinions applied Armstrong positively or repeated the history parenthetical identifying Johnson's act; one later court expressly rejected an argument that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes had abrogated Armstrong.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

429 later cases cite Armstrong v. Davis; 113 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Armstrong v. Davis?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court displaced Armstrong's assumption that Turner deference could govern all aspects of prison regulation by holding that racial classifications in prisons are subject to strict scrutiny.

    Johnson v. California · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The CDC invites us to make an exception to the rule that strict scrutiny applies to all racial classifications, and instead to apply the deferential standard of review articulated in Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78 (1987), because its segregation policy applies only in the prison context. We decline the invitation. ... We have never applied Turner to racial classifications. Turner itself did not involve any racial classification, and it cast no doubt on Lee.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Armstrong v. Davis and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace