The Department of Justice is taking further action to constitutionally align discrimination policies and remove DEI-based policies that allow a preponderance of weighted discrimination cases to flood the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, while other discrimination cases are ignored.
On Tuesday, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a press release, "Department of Justice Rule Restores Equal Protection for All in Civil Rights Enforcement," which outlined the revision of Title VI regulations to remove "disparate-impact liability."
Today, the Justice Department issued a final rule updating its regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964. This rule ensures that our nation’s federal civil rights laws are firmly grounded in the principle of equal treatment under the law by eliminating disparate-impact liability from its Title VI regulations.
“For decades, the Justice Department has used disparate-impact liability to undermine the constitutional principle that all Americans must be treated equally under the law,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “No longer. This Department of Justice is eliminating its regulations that for far too long required recipients of federal funding to make decisions based on race.”
“The prior ‘disparate impact’ regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Our rejection of this theory will restore true equality under the law by requiring proof of actual discrimination, rather than enforcing race- or sex-based quotas or assumptions.”
“For over 50 years, the prior disparate-impact rule fostered the very thing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited — discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. But with today’s rule,” said Chief of Staff and Supervisory Official for the Office of Legal Policy Nicholas Schilling. “The Department reaffirms Congress’ commitment to measure all Americans by merit.”
Department of Justice Rule Restores Equal Protection for All in Civil Rights Enforcement
— DOJ Civil Rights Division (@CivilRights) December 9, 2025
“The prior ‘disparate impact’ regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination,” said @AAGDhillon. “Our… pic.twitter.com/EjhLR6WhWe
Department of Justice Rule Restores Equal Protection for All in Civil Rights Enforcement “The prior ‘disparate impact’ regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination,” said @AAGDhillon. “Our rejection of this theory will restore true equality under the law by requiring proof of actual discrimination, rather than enforcing race- or sex-based quotas or assumptions.”
The concept of "disparate impact" was not originally part of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was added under the Nixon administration in 1973.
The term “disparate impact” refers to the concept of imposing liability on a federal fund recipient only because there may be different outcomes for different people, not based on prejudice or intent.
Rather than focusing on disparate treatment (i.e., intentional bias), disparate impact looks at whether facially neutral rules have a disproportionately negative effect on a protected class. This effectively tied the hands of the DOJ to act on lawsuits brought in certain states and on certain matters, like California and its restrictive gun laws, and New York and its targeting of Jews and Jewish organizations. This disparate impact provision also tied discrimination to cases solely brought on the basis of certain races over others. So, while Blacks are always disparately impacted, Asians, by virtue of these studies, are never disparately impacted. This is selectively choosing what race-based discrimination is worthy of the DOJ CR's attention and what is not.
"The prior 'disparate impact' regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination," said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who leads the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
Dhillon said the department's shift would require proof of actual discrimination rather than, in the department's words, enforcing race- or sex-based quotas or assumptions.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order in April rolling back this disparate impact section. The DOJ is now aligning its policies to give it teeth, and Asst. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon is now putting forward cases that would have been rejected by prior administrations.
Like discriminatory practices against whites. Disparate impact studies do not consider whites as a group that is impacted by discrimination. Yet institutions that receive federal money continue to craft policies that give special treatment to other races and religions that supposedly represent those affected under disparate impact studies.
No longer.
Justice Department Sues Minneapolis Public Schools for Racial Discrimination Against Teachers
— DOJ Civil Rights Division (@CivilRights) December 10, 2025
“Employers may not provide more favorable terms and conditions of employment based on an employee’s race and sex,” said @AAGDhillon. “The Department of Justice will vigorously pursue… pic.twitter.com/EcZW9TUFuN
Justice Department Sues Minneapolis Public Schools for Racial Discrimination Against Teachers
“Employers may not provide more favorable terms and conditions of employment based on an employee’s race and sex,” said @AAGDhillon. “The Department of Justice will vigorously pursue employers who deny their employees equal opportunities and benefits by classifying and limiting them based on their race, color, national origin, or sex.”
Educational institutions that receive federal funding but openly target Christians are also under scrutiny. While the legal battles being waged in the Loudoun County School District over transgender bathroom use are Title IX-oriented, one of the cases involves three teenage boys who complained about a female claiming to identify as male using their bathroom, and also appears to be in violation of Title VI. In this issue, the school district specifically dropped the charges against the one Muslim boy, but continued to pursue charges against the two Christian boys involved. As AAG Dhillon points out, this is a violation of these boys' religious liberties.
WATCH:
Schools which choose to infringe their students’ religious liberty should be on notice! Loudoun County’s egregious persecution of boys who objected to a girl in their locker room, will not be tolerated by this @TheJusticeDept and @CivilRights. pic.twitter.com/BpmdCDlSm5
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) December 10, 2025
Read More: DOJ Steps in After Boys Get Punished for Telling the Truth
AAG Dhillon Lowers the Boom on UC Berkeley After TPUSA Violence
Even Second Amendment violations, which DOJ CR previously steered clear of, are now on the table.
Civil Rights Division Files the First Department of Justice Affirmative Lawsuit in Support of Gun Owners
— DOJ Civil Rights Division (@CivilRights) September 30, 2025
“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” said @AAGDhillon. “This lawsuit seeks to stop Los Angeles County’s egregious pattern and practice of delaying law-abiding… pic.twitter.com/MjAM51NH1x
Civil Rights Division Files the First Department of Justice Affirmative Lawsuit in Support of Gun Owners
“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” said @AAGDhillon. “This lawsuit seeks to stop Los Angeles County’s egregious pattern and practice of delaying law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to bear arms.”
DOJ CR is even tackling disparate treatment in prisons, a cause that usually gets full-court press on the left. The scrutiny has been fueled by complaints against a Colorado prison's treatment of former Mesa County, CO clerk Tina Peters, who was convicted and sentenced for her role in attempting to expose 2020 election fraud. Peters, an elderly white woman, has been the subject of calls for justice.
Today, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division announced that it has opened a civil investigation into conditions within facilities operated by the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) and Colorado Department of Youth Services (DYS). The investigation will examine DOC and DYS policies and practices to ensure that DOC inmates and youths in the custody of DYS are being afforded their rights under the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
“The Constitution protects every American, whether they are a young person confined in a juvenile facility or an elderly person confined to a prison,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “We are committed to upholding our federal civil rights laws so that no one is subject to unconstitutional mistreatment when held in state custody.”
💥Heads up, Colorado Commies!@AAGDhillon & @CivilRights opened an investigation into the Colorado prison system.
— Break The Chains Media (@BreakTheChainsM) December 9, 2025
Multiple reports of unconstitutional & legally insufficient carceral conditions. Prisoners have civil rights.
Heres to hoping that this ties in with Tina Peters. pic.twitter.com/d1gUlupCLH
So, with the removal of the disparate impact provision, the purview of what determines "civil rights" has returned to constitutional alignment, rather than subjective judgment.
Editor's Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring President Trump's agenda to make America great again.
Help us hold these corrupt judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member