Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
On Wednesday, Donald Trump signed an executive order that has drawn significant backlash from legal experts and civil rights advocates. The order aims to eliminate “disparate-impact liability” in the enforcement of federal civil rights laws, a move that critics argue undermines longstanding protections against discrimination in the United States.
The directive instructs federal agencies to prioritize other enforcement measures over laws that may have discriminatory impacts, even in the absence of intent to discriminate. This principle has been a fundamental component of civil rights law, enabling the protection of marginalized groups. Additionally, it mandates the attorney general to initiate the repeal or modification of regulations that support Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
According to the order, “Disparate-impact liability imperils the effectiveness of civil rights laws by mandating, rather than proscribing, discrimination.” The administration characterizes this legal concept as a detrimental force against what they term “the American Dream.”
Legally, disparate-impact liability enables individuals to contest seemingly neutral policies that disproportionately disadvantage protected groups without needing to demonstrate intentional discrimination.
Fatima Goss Graves, the president of the National Women’s Law Center, condemned the executive action, stating it directs government entities to forgo enforcing essential civil rights protections across workplaces, educational institutions, and society at large. She emphasized that a president lacks the authority to revoke fundamental civil rights measures so abruptly.
Derek Black, a constitutional law professor at USC, criticized the rationale behind the order. He expressed his views on X, arguing that if disparate-impact liability was as detrimental as claimed, significant disparities would have been eradicated long ago.
The new executive order mandates that all federal agencies conduct a review of ongoing cases and consent decrees that involve disparate impact within a 90-day timeframe. Agencies are also instructed to take “appropriate action” regarding any current investigations, civil litigation, or consent agreements predicated on disparate-impact arguments.
Source
www.theguardian.com