Espinoza et Vir v. Farah Manufacturing Co., Inc.
414 U.S. 86 · Decided November 19, 1973 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Espinoza et Vir v. Farah Manufacturing Co., Inc. was decided on November 19, 1973 by a vote of 8–1. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Employability of aliens” in the Civil Rights area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 414 U.S. 86 · 94 S. Ct. 334 · 38 L. Ed. 2d 287 · 1973 U.S. LEXIS 175
- Docket number
- 72-671
- Decided
- November 19, 1973
- Argued
- October 10, 1973
- Court era
- Burger Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority opinion
- Thurgood Marshall
- Opinion assigned by
- Warren E. Burger
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Employability of aliens
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Legal provision
- Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
- Type of law
- Federal statute
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William O. Douglas | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Potter Stewart | Majority | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice Warren E. Burger | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Majority | |
| Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority |
Full case caption
Espinoza et Vir v. Farah Manufacturing Co., Inc.
SCDB identifiers: case 1973-014, docket 1973-014-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Employability of aliens”
- Sugarman v. DougallLaw held unconstitutional
- In re Griffiths
- Saxbe v. Bustos
- De Canas v. Bica
- Hampton v. Mow Sun WongLaw held unconstitutional
- Examining Board of Engineers v. Flores de OteroLaw held unconstitutional
Cases on the same legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
- Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
- Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
- Love v. Pullman Co.
- Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., Inc.
Same Term, same area (Civil Rights)
- United States Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Hibi
- Dennett v. Hogan
- Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe
- Kusper v. PontikesLaw held unconstitutional
- O'Brien v. SkinnerLaw held unconstitutional
- Lau v. Nichols
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error