In a decisive move that reshapes the federal civil rights landscape, the Justice Department announced a landmark update to its regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Effective immediately, the department will no longer use “disparate-impact” liability in Title VI cases, focusing instead on rooting out intentional discrimination. This is not just a bureaucratic tweak this is a fundamental recalibration of how America pursues justice and equality.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi delivered a clear message: “No longer. This Department of Justice is eliminating its regulations that for far too long required recipients of federal funding to make decisions based on race.” Her words spotlight the principle at the heart of this shift: Every American deserves treatment based on merit, not the color of their skin or statistical proxies.
What exactly is changing? For decades, disparate-impact liability has allowed lawsuits and enforcement actions against entities with race-neutral policies, even in the absence of proven discriminatory intent so long as those policies resulted in different outcomes across groups. Critics long argued that the theory’s focus on statistical disparities forced organizations to make race-based decisions, sidestepping the intention behind their actions and compelling compliance with de facto quotas.
The new rule axes this theory from DOJ’s Title VI playbook. Going forward, civil rights enforcement will hinge on demonstrable, intentional discrimination not differences in outcomes or unproven assumptions about bias. This isn’t a retreat from fighting discrimination; rather, it’s a renewed commitment to the Constitution’s promise of equal treatment under the law.
The move comes on the heels of an executive order from President Trump earlier this year, instructing all federal agencies to cease using disparate-impact claims under civil rights statutes. This cohesive policy vision is now reflected in the Justice Department’s regulations.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who leads the Civil Rights Division, strongly underscored the importance of intent. “The prior ‘disparate impact’ regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination,” she noted. The department’s revised approach demands that claims now be backed by real evidence of discrimination, not merely statistical disparities.
Nicholas Schilling, Chief of Staff for the Office of Legal Policy, echoed that sentiment, arguing that the 50-year experiment with disparate impact only led to more discrimination “barred by the 1964 law.” The new rule, he insisted, brings enforcement back in alignment with Congress’s original vision: evaluating and treating Americans “by merit.”
Lest anyone mistake this for eroding civil rights, the department is clear: Title VI continues to prohibit explicit discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in every federally funded program. The difference is clarity. The Justice Department now seeks a system free from confusion, costly compliance, and the ambiguity that has plagued recipients of federal funds for years.
The disparate-impact rule, adopted in 1973, never appeared in the original statute and was even blocked in some states as unworkable. The department’s overhaul is grounded in Supreme Court precedent over the last 20 years, aligning agency enforcement with the highest legal authority and ensuring that regulations adhere to the Constitution as written.
By removing the disparate-impact language, the Justice Department is not just updating a regulation it is restoring the foundational confidence that Americans’ civil rights are protected according to the law, and not merely to statistics. This bold, confident move affirms a vision where all Americans are judged by their actions and intentions, not by numbers or quotas.
Aaron Bowman
The Right Vibe