Image Credit: dhillonlaw
Washington, D.C.— The U.S. Department of Justice, under Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, is systematically reviewing and terminating numerous civil rights cases and settlements, particularly those based on "disparate impact" analysis.
This shift marks a significant departure from traditional civil rights enforcement, raising concerns among advocacy groups about the potential erosion of protections for marginalized communities.
Key Facts:
-
The DOJ has withdrawn from an agreement with an Atlanta bank accused of discouraging Black and Latino homebuyers from applying for loans.
-
The Education Department ended a settlement with a South Dakota school district where Native American students faced higher disciplinary rates than their White peers.
-
Federal prosecutors have dropped several police reform agreements, including those in Minneapolis and Louisville, initiated after the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.
Dhillon asserts that many cases initiated under the previous administration were "legally unsupportable" and politically motivated.
She emphasizes a commitment to enforcing civil rights laws without politicization.
Civil rights advocates argue that dismantling cases based on disparate impact undermines decades of progress in addressing systemic discrimination.
Amalea Smirniotopoulos of the Legal Defense Fund stated, "What we’re seeing is an attempt by the Trump administration to really dismantle a lot of the core tools that we use to ensure equality in the country."
The broader implications of this policy shift are profound, potentially affecting enforcement in areas such as housing, education, employment, and policing.
By moving away from disparate impact analysis, the DOJ may limit its ability to address practices that, while not overtly discriminatory, result in unequal outcomes for minority groups.
Established in 1957, the Civil Rights Division has historically played a pivotal role in enforcing federal statutes prohibiting discrimination.
Under Dhillon's leadership, the division's focus has shifted, leading to significant staff departures and a reevaluation of its mission.
As the DOJ continues its review, the future of numerous civil rights protections remains uncertain.
Advocacy groups and affected communities are closely monitoring developments and preparing to challenge actions they view as detrimental to civil rights enforcement.
Do You Know?
The concept of "disparate impact" was solidified in the 1971 Supreme Court case Griggs v. Duke Power Co., establishing that employment practices may be considered discriminatory if they disproportionately affect minority groups, even without intentional bias.
Key Terms:
-
Disparate Impact: A legal theory that practices may be deemed discriminatory if they have a disproportionate adverse effect on a protected group, regardless of intent.
-
Civil Rights Division: A division within the U.S. Department of Justice responsible for enforcing federal statutes prohibiting discrimination.
-
Consent Decree: A legal agreement used to resolve a dispute between parties without admission of guilt, often used in civil rights cases to enforce reforms.