Griggs v. Houston was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of racial discrimination in the workplace. The case involved a dispute between the Houston and Texas Central Railway Company and its African American employees. The company had implemented a policy that required all employees to have a high school diploma or pass a standardized intelligence test in order to be eligible for certain positions. The employees argued that this policy had a disparate impact on African Americans, as they were less likely to have a high school diploma or pass the intelligence test. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees, finding that the policy was discriminatory and violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Court held that the policy was not job-related and had a disparate impact on African Americans, and thus was a violation of the Civil Rights Act. The Court also held that the company had failed to demonstrate that the policy was necessary for the job, and that it was not a bona fide occupational qualification. The Court's ruling in Griggs v. Houston established the legal precedent that employers cannot use policies that have a disparate impact on certain groups of people, and that employers must demonstrate that any such policies are necessary for the job. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving discrimination in the workplace.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Griggs v. Houston, arguing that the decision of the Supreme Court was an unwarranted extension of federal power over state laws and judicial proceedings. He argued that Congress had not given any authority to regulate such matters as those presented by this case, which involved a dispute between two individuals concerning a contract for labor services. Furthermore, he contended that even if Congress did have such authority, it would be unconstitutional for them to exercise it in this particular instance because it would interfere with the rights of states to manage their own affairs without interference from federal authorities. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that while he sympathized with Griggs' plight and believed him to be wronged by Houston's actions, there were no legal grounds upon which relief could be granted under existing law or constitutional provisions.