News India Times

www.newsindiatimes.com – that’s all you need to know - Continued On Page 7 Cover Story News India Times (June 7, 2025 - June 13, 2025) June 13, 2025 6 Discrimination Cases, Settlements Being Reviewed At Civil Rights Division Headed By Harmeet Dhillon F or decades, the federal government has used data analysis to ferret out race and sex discrimination, winning court cases and reaching settlements in housing, education, policing and across American life. Now the Trump administration is working to unwind those same cases. In recent weeks, the Justice Department backed out of an agreement with an Atlanta bank accused of systemati- cally discouraging Black and Latino home buyers from applying for loans. The Education Department termi- nated an agreement with a South Dakota school district where Native American students were disciplined at higher rates than theirWhite peers. And federal prosecu- tors have dropped several racial discrimination reform agreements involving state and local police departments – including that of Minneapolis, where George Floyd was murdered by an officer in 2020. The Justice Department now is reviewing its entire docket and has already dismissed or terminated “many” cases that were “legally unsupportable” and a product of “weaponization” under the Biden administration, said Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “We will fully enforce civil rights laws in a way that satisfies the ends of justice, not politicization,” she said in a statement to TheWashington Post. The review includes cases and reform agreements forged after years-long investigations that the administra- tion says lacked justification. Civil rights experts estimate that dozens of discrimination cases involving banks, landlords, private employers and school districts could face similar action. “What we’re seeing is an attempt by the Trump admin- istration to really dismantle a lot of the core tools that we use to ensure equality in the country,” said Amalea Smir- niotopoulos, senior policy counsel and co-manager of the Equal Protection Initiative at the Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit that has long advocated for the civil rights of Black Americans and other minorities. At the center of this effort is “disparate impact analy- sis,” which holds that neutral policies can have discrimi- natory outcomes even if there was no intent to discrimi- nate. The legal standard stems from Griggs v. Duke Power, the landmark 1971 Supreme Court decision that became a staple of civil rights litigation. In that case, attorneys relied on statistical evidence to show how standardized testing prevented Black employees in North Carolina from advancing at the energy company. The legal theory has been consistently recognized by the Supreme Court, written into federal regulations and enshrined into employment law by Congress. But President Donald Trump declared it unconstitutional in April, issuing an executive order that kicked off an intense review of civil rights regulations, enforcement actions and settled cases. Now, government agreements and orders that relied on disparate impact in pursuing sex, race and disability discrimination cases are being undone. On May 23, for example, the Justice Department terminated an agreement with Patriot Bank, a Tennessee- based lender accused of failing to lend in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods in Memphis, from 2015 to 2020. Prosecutors used statistical evidence to show disparities in the bank’s lending practices alongside evidence of intentional discrimination, such as targeting most of its advertising in majority-White neighborhoods. A three-year agreement to reform its lending practices had been in place for a little over a year before Trump’s Justice Department moved to end it, noting the bank was in compliance with the reform agreement. Patriot declined to comment. Civil rights advocates worry about the future of similar enforcement. “It’s critical we have disparate impact to fight against race discrimination,” said Thomas Silverstein, executive director of the Poverty & Race Research Action Council, who is watching at least a dozen housing and lending cases that could fall apart without it. The principle has been fundamental to ending “prac- tices that perpetuate inequalities in our society that have their roots in Jim Crow, redlining and the state-sanc- tioned discrimination of the past.” A CONSERVATIVE TARGET Disparate impact has long been anathema to conser- vatives, who say it can result in quotas and deny equal opportunity toWhite people. But past Republican admin- istrations opted not to take this issue on, partly because of Supreme Court precedent and partly because it might prove politically unpopular. “What changed is just political will,” said Kenneth L. Marcus, who headed the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights during both GeorgeW. Bush’s administra- tion and Trump’s first term. “The second Trump adminis- tration is more willing to take on potentially contentious civil rights issues than any Republican administration this century.” Trump issued a slew of executive orders to eradicate diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs – calling them “illegal and immoral” days after he returned to the White House in January – and ordered the government to close diversity offices and fire their staff. His administration has since launched investiga- tions into corporations, law firms and colleges over their diversity initiatives, while going to battle with Harvard University for its refusal to comply with a set of demands to alter its governance, admissions and hiring practices. When Trump set his sights on disparate impact in April, he called it a “pernicious movement” that ignores “individual strengths, effort or achievement.” He ordered federal agencies to review any cases and reform agree- ments that rely on the theory – and terminate them as they see fit. The actions are long overdue, said Dan Morenoff, executive director at the American Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit law firm that opposes the use of disparate impact and diversity initiatives. He contends that the government’s use of disparate impact has been, in many cases, legally dubious, adding that its assumptions are fundamentally flawed. “The people who most appreciate disparate impact appear, usually, to be deeply wed to the idea that any dis- crepancies are best explained by discrimination,” he said. “All of us know that’s usually not true – that often differ- ent groups of people … just don’t behave the same, don’t prefer the same things, don’t pursue the same ends.” The Supreme Court most recently upheld the use of disparate impact analysis in a 2015 housing case. But that decision was decided on a 5-4 vote in an opinion writ- ten by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, now retired. Some conservatives believe the court’s current conservative supermajority might give them their wished-for outcome. “It’s clear what the Trump administration is aiming for is to get this question to the Supreme Court in hopes the Supreme Court will take that tool away,” said Smirnioto- poulos of the Legal Defense Fund. UNEVEN LENDING, DISCIPLINE, HIRING AND POLICING The rollbacks are already underway. In 2023, the Justice Department alleged that Atlanta- based Ameris Bank avoided providing home loans to Black and Latino home buyers in Jacksonville, Florida, in a practice known as redlining. The bank almost exclusive- ly advertised in majority-White neighborhoods and made little effort to do business in majority Black and Latino neighborhoods, according to its lawsuit. Only 2.7 percent of Ameris’s mortgages went to bor- rowers in Black and Latino communities from 2016 to 2021, the complaint said, while its competitors issued more than three times as many loans during that window. Ameris knew about the disparities but failed to correct them, the government alleged. Though it admitted no wrongdoing, Ameris quickly settled the case, agreeing to a set of measures whose progress would be monitored by the court. Then, on May 19, the Justice Department moved to unwind the settlement, saying that the bank has “dem- onstrated a commitment to remediation” while freeing it from its legal obligations to implement the reforms. The bank did not object to the move. Prosecutors did note that Ameris had disbursed the entirety of a $7.5 million loan subsidy fund for borrowers in Black and Latino neighborhoods. A judge granted the request a day later. Ameris de- clined to comment. In a Rapid City, South Dakota, case, the question cen- tered on education of Native American students. An investigation of the Rapid City school district by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights found that Native students were twice as likely asWhite students to be referred for discipline, more than four times as likely to be suspended and more than five times as likely to be referred to law enforcement officials. It also found disparities in advanced coursework. At the middle school, only about 2.5 percent of students in advanced classes were Native American, while Native students made up about 18 percent of the student popu- lation. And the high school serving the majority of Native students offered four Advanced Placement courses while the other, slightly smaller high school offered 10. There was also some evidence of intentional discrimi- nation. For instance, during the investigation, the then- superintendent described certain Native American tribes as not commonly valuing education and operating on “Indian time,” meaning they arrive late. Last year, the Biden administration reached a volun- By Julian Mark, Laura Meckler PHOTO:X @PNJABAN PHOTO: JOSH REYNOLDS/FORTHEWASHINGTON POST Harmeet Dhillon The spire of Memorial Church stands above Harvard Yard in Cam- bridge, Massachusetts.