The Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has rescinded a regulation that for decades allowed federal officials to use statistical evidence to show that neutral policies produced racially disparate outcomes under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The change — announced this week without a public-comment period — eliminates the department’s longstanding ability to pursue so-called "disparate impact" claims in education and other federally funded programs.
What the Change Means
Previously, investigators could rely on data showing unequal outcomes — for example, in advanced-course placement or school discipline — to determine whether policies or practices had a discriminatory effect, even if there was no intent to discriminate. Under the new rule, neutral policies that yield unequal racial or national-origin outcomes will generally not be treated as grounds for Department of Justice enforcement.
Illustrative Cases
Federal investigations have long turned on data. In 2014, a probe of Manchester, New Hampshire, found that Black students were placed in Advanced Placement and honors classes at far lower rates than their peers under the district’s assignment policies. In Rapid City, South Dakota, an Office for Civil Rights investigation found Native American students were twice as likely as white students to receive discipline referrals and nearly five times as likely to be suspended during the 2021–22 school year; an agreement requiring remedies there was withdrawn after the Justice Department’s action. And last September the Justice Department reached an agreement with Jefferson County, Kentucky, to address racial disparities in discipline after an investigation documented disproportionate penalties for Black students.
Reactions From Both Sides
Supporters of the change — including conservative policy thinkers — say the rollback corrects federal overreach and protects schools from being second-guessed for neutral policies that may have complex causes. Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute called it a "necessary corrective."
“The law promises that people are treated as individuals, not components of a particular race or group,” Attorney General Bondi wrote, also citing President Trump’s executive order promoting merit-based treatment.
Civil-rights advocates and some former Justice Department attorneys argue the move will weaken enforcement tools that have helped address systemic disparities. GeDá Jones Herbert of Brown’s Promise warned that discrimination is not always obvious: "Sometimes we can’t find the fire, and the smoke is enough." A group of former DOJ civil-rights officials said the administration had largely abandoned its duty to protect civil rights.
Administrative Context And Next Steps
The policy shift arrives as the Education Department calls back more than 250 civil-rights staff who had been on administrative leave to address a growing backlog of complaints. A January Office for Civil Rights report, issued before the current administration, documented a year-over-year rise in complaints. Although the Justice Department’s announcement applies only to DOJ enforcement, the Education Department and other agencies have signaled similar intentions, raising questions about how Title VI will be enforced across the federal government going forward.
Why It Matters
Removing disparate-impact enforcement changes the federal government’s posture on equity in schools and other programs that receive federal funds. Advocates worry it will reduce incentives and mechanisms for districts to confront structural disparities in discipline, course access and other outcomes. Supporters counter that it prevents ideological or heavy-handed federal intervention and protects local decision-making.
Bottom line: The rule change reshapes a key civil-rights enforcement tool and is likely to prompt legal challenges, renewed policy debates, and a patchwork of responses from states and districts as communities and advocates assess the impact on efforts to address unequal outcomes.
