Also known as:racially discriminatory intention · discriminatory intent · racial intent
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The purposeful mental state of acting to disadvantage individuals because of their race. This state of mind is required to establish an equal protection violation when a facially neutral government action produces a racially disparate impact. Proof of discriminatory purpose converts statistical disparity into a constitutional violation.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Veterans Preference Hiring Rule
Ricardo Rojas, a non-veteran from a minority group, applies for a state civil service position. The state awards an absolute hiring preference to veterans under a facially neutral statute. The preference produces a disparate impact on minority applicants, but the legislature adopted it solely to reward military service. Because the purpose is to benefit veterans rather than to disadvantage any racial group, the preference does not reflect racially discriminatory intent.
Peremptory Strike Explanation Stage
Rowan Russell, a Black defendant, objects when the prosecutor strikes two Black venire members. The prosecutor offers a race-neutral reason that the strikes were based on the jurors' occupations. At the second stage the explanation need only be race-neutral. The court defers the ultimate question of racially discriminatory intent until the third stage of the inquiry.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Hornbooks
Batson v. Kentucky476 U.S. 79, 103 (1986)
Written Aptitude Test Disparity
Rina Rahman, a minority applicant, fails a written risk-analytics test required for an analyst position at a quasi-public insurance exchange. The test produces markedly lower pass rates for minority candidates. Direct evidence that decision-makers chose the test because of its effect on minority applicants can establish racially discriminatory intent under equal protection.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.401 U.S. 424 (1971)
Preclearance Trigger Without Intent Finding
Riley Rivera, a registered voter in an affected county, challenges a state law requiring preclearance for polling changes in counties with turnout gaps exceeding fifteen percent. The counties lack any recent judicial or administrative finding of intentional discrimination by election officials. Because the statute operates solely on statistical disparities without evidence of racially discriminatory intent, the preclearance regime exceeds congressional enforcement power.
Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder570 U.S. 529, 133 S. Ct. 2612, 186 L. Ed. 2d 651 (2013)
Travel Ban Purpose Inquiry
Raymond Ramos, a U.S. resident seeking to sponsor a family member from a listed country, challenges a presidential proclamation restricting entry. Campaign statements and subsequent remarks by the President supply evidence that the proclamation was enacted for the purpose of disfavoring Muslims. The presence of racially discriminatory intent converts the facially neutral entry restrictions into an equal protection violation.
Trump v. Hawaii138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018)
Test Score Discard Decision
Robert Rivera, a firefighter who passed a promotional exam, sues after the city discards the results because minority candidates passed at lower rates. The city offers no evidence that the exam was adopted or administered with the purpose of disadvantaging minority applicants. Absent racially discriminatory intent, the decision to discard the results violates Title VII and equal protection principles.
Ricci v. DeStefano557 U.S. 557 (2009)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
Does disparate racial impact alone prove racially discriminatory intent?+
No. A facially neutral law or policy that produces a racially disparate impact does not violate equal protection absent proof that the government acted with the purpose of disadvantaging a racial group because of race. Statistical disparity by itself is insufficient.
Supporting sources
At what stage of a Batson challenge is racially discriminatory intent ultimately decided?+
The ultimate question of racially discriminatory intent is decided at the third stage after the prosecutor offers a race-neutral explanation at stage two. The explanation need not be persuasive or even plausible so long as it is race-neutral.
Supporting sources
What evidence can establish racially discriminatory intent when a neutral policy has a disparate impact?+
Internal emails praising a test's filtering effect on minority hiring, legislative history showing a purpose to disadvantage a racial group, or other direct or circumstantial evidence that the policy was adopted because of its racial effect can establish the required intent.
Supporting sources
Does the absence of a recent finding of intentional discrimination prevent Congress from imposing a preclearance regime?+
Yes. When a statute triggers federal oversight solely on the basis of statistical turnout gaps without any finding of purposeful racial discrimination by state officials, the regime exceeds Congress's enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment because it lacks congruence and proportionality to proven constitutional violations.
Supporting sources
138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018)Legislation and Regulation
…at some future time, both because the [Government] has created the dispute through its own prior unlawful conduct, and because discriminatory intent does tend to persist through time” (citation omitted)). Notably, the Court recently found less pervasive official expressions of hostility and the failure to disavow them to be…