Department of Justice Eliminates 50-Year-Old Disparate Impact Standard from Civil Rights Enforcement, Requiring Proof of Intentional Discrimination

Introduction

On December 9, 2025, the Department of Justice issued a final rule that eliminates disparate impact liability from its enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ending nearly five decades of federal civil rights protections. The rule change represents one of the most significant rollbacks of civil rights enforcement in modern American history, requiring proof of intentional discrimination rather than allowing enforcement based on discriminatory outcomes.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the department is “eliminating its regulations that for far too long required recipients of federal funding to make decisions based on race.” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who oversees the Civil Rights Division, stated the change will “restore true equality under the law by requiring proof of actual discrimination.”

The disparate impact standard, established through DOJ regulations in 1973, allowed federal enforcement against facially neutral policies that produced discriminatory outcomes in areas including housing, education, employment, policing, environmental regulation, and voting access—even without evidence that discrimination was intentional. Its elimination fundamentally transforms civil rights law by immunizing practices that perpetuate systemic inequality as long as they do not explicitly target protected groups.

The Regulatory Change

What Was Eliminated

The Justice Department’s final rule rescinds regulations issued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibited recipients of federal funding from engaging in disparate impact discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

The disparate impact standard previously permitted federal enforcement against policies producing statistically unequal outcomes across racial or ethnic groups, regardless of whether the policy explicitly referenced race or demonstrated discriminatory intent. This doctrine recognized that discrimination often operates through neutral-appearing rules that perpetuate historical inequalities or reflect structural biases.

Under the previous framework, federal agencies could:

• Challenge lending practices that disproportionately denied mortgages to minority applicants
• Investigate school discipline policies producing vastly disparate suspension rates by race
• Scrutinize hiring requirements with no job-related necessity that screened out protected groups
• Challenge environmental permitting decisions concentrating pollution in minority communities
• Review voting requirements producing racially disparate ballot rejection rates

The New Standard

The final rule restricts Title VI enforcement exclusively to cases demonstrating intentional discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Going forward, the DOJ will not pursue enforcement actions against organizations for disparate-impact discrimination under Title VI.

This means federal civil rights enforcement requires proving that decision-makers consciously intended to discriminate—evidence that is extraordinarily difficult to obtain in modern discrimination cases where explicit racial animus is rarely documented.

Legal Basis Claimed

Officials argued the prior regulation created compliance burdens on states, local governments, nonprofits, and organizations and conflicted with constitutional equal protection principles and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Title VI.

The Department’s justification stated: “The Department’s new rule reflects the best reading of Title VI, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized for over twenty years. Title VI has and will continue to prohibit intentional discrimination.”

The final rule implements Executive Order 14281, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” signed on April 23, 2025, which seeks to “eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.”

Historical Context and Legal Background

Origins of Disparate Impact Doctrine

The disparate impact standard emerged from recognition that discrimination in the post-Civil Rights era increasingly operated through facially neutral mechanisms that perpetuated racial inequality without explicit racial classifications.

The doctrine was first recognized by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), a Title VII employment discrimination case. The Court held that employment practices that are “fair in form, but discriminatory in operation” violate civil rights law, even without proof of discriminatory intent.

The DOJ adopted disparate impact regulations for Title VI enforcement in 1973, extending this framework to programs receiving federal financial assistance. For more than 50 years, these regulations provided the legal foundation for challenging:

• Discriminatory housing and lending practices
• Educational policies producing severe racial disparities
• Environmental decisions concentrating toxic facilities in minority neighborhoods
• Voting procedures creating barriers for minority voters
• Criminal justice policies with racially disparate impacts

Supreme Court Precedent

The Trump administration’s claim that the Supreme Court has “repeatedly recognized” its reading of Title VI refers to cases including Alexander v. Sandoval (2001), which held that Title VI itself provides a private right of action only for intentional discrimination.

However, Sandoval explicitly stated that federal agencies retain authority to adopt disparate impact regulations under their statutory mandate to issue rules implementing Title VI. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion noted: “Agencies may … adopt their own standards … so long as they are consistent with the statute.”

The Supreme Court has upheld disparate impact frameworks in other civil rights contexts:

• Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project (2015) affirmed disparate impact liability under the Fair Housing Act
• Ricci v. DeStefano (2009) analyzed Title VII disparate impact claims without questioning the doctrine’s validity

Congressional Intent

Title VI was enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ensure federal funds do not subsidize discrimination. The statute prohibits exclusion from federally-funded programs “on the ground of race, color, or national origin.”

Congressional debates demonstrate legislators understood Title VI would address both intentional discrimination and discriminatory effects. Senator Hubert Humphrey, the bill’s floor manager, stated the provision would reach practices that “have that effect, even though the explicit purpose might be something else.”

Impact Across Policy Areas

Housing and Community Development

The elimination of disparate impact enforcement removes federal scrutiny of:

• Lending practices that deny mortgages to qualified minority applicants at higher rates than white applicants with similar credit profiles
• Zoning regulations that exclude affordable housing from predominantly white neighborhoods
• Public housing siting decisions concentrating low-income housing in segregated areas
• Property appraisal methodologies systematically undervaluing homes in minority communities
• Municipal policies on code enforcement and service provision that disproportionately affect minority neighborhoods

A 2023 National Fair Housing Alliance study found Black applicants were denied conventional mortgage loans at rates 1.5 times higher than white applicants with similar financial characteristics. Under the new DOJ standard, such patterns would not trigger federal civil rights enforcement absent proof that lenders consciously intended to discriminate.

Education

Schools and educational institutions receiving federal funds will face reduced scrutiny of:

• Discipline policies producing vast racial disparities in suspensions and expulsions
• Academic tracking systems channeling students into different educational paths based on criteria with disparate racial impacts
• School funding formulas that perpetuate resource inequalities between predominantly white and minority schools
• Special education identification procedures disproportionately classifying minority students as disabled
• Admissions policies and requirements with disparate effects on minority applicants

Department of Education data shows Black students are suspended and expelled at rates three times higher than white students nationally. Many of these disparities result from facially neutral “zero tolerance” policies applied in discretionary contexts. Without disparate impact enforcement, such policies face minimal federal civil rights scrutiny.

Environmental Justice

Environmental protection agencies will have diminished authority to challenge:

• Permitting decisions locating polluting facilities in predominantly minority communities
• Enforcement patterns that allow environmental violations to persist in minority neighborhoods
• Land use decisions exposing minority populations to environmental hazards at disproportionate rates
• Infrastructure investments that concentrate highway construction and industrial facilities near minority communities

Research by the EPA and academic institutions has documented that communities of color face exposure to air pollution, toxic waste, and industrial facilities at rates significantly exceeding white communities, even controlling for income. The disparate impact standard provided the legal framework for addressing these patterns.

Criminal Justice and Policing

Law enforcement agencies and criminal justice systems will face reduced accountability for:

• Policing practices producing vast racial disparities in arrests and citations
• Bail and pretrial detention policies with severe disparate impacts by race
• Drug enforcement strategies targeting minority communities while treating similar conduct in white communities differently
• Traffic enforcement patterns producing racially disparate stops and searches
• Use of algorithms and risk assessment tools that perpetuate historical biases

Data consistently shows profound racial disparities across the criminal justice system. For example, Black Americans are incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of white Americans. Many of these disparities result from facially neutral policies—mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines, policing strategies—that operate within systems shaped by historical discrimination.

Voting Access

Election administrators will have greater latitude to implement:

• Voter identification requirements that disproportionately burden minority voters
• Polling place closures and relocations that reduce voting access in minority communities
• Ballot design and voting technology with higher error rates for minority voters
• Voter purge procedures that disproportionately remove minority voters from registration rolls
• Election procedures producing disparately high ballot rejection rates for minority voters

Studies of voter ID laws, for instance, consistently find they reduce turnout among minority voters at higher rates than white voters. Without disparate impact enforcement, such laws face civil rights challenges only if challengers can prove legislators consciously intended to discriminate—a nearly impossible standard given legislators’ incentives to avoid creating such evidence.

Employment (Limited Impact)

The final rule explicitly states it “does not affect the disparate impact provisions of other areas of federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which applies in the private sector employment context.”

However, the rule affects employment at organizations receiving federal funds through Title VI, including:

• State and local government hiring and employment practices
• Educational institutions’ employment decisions
• Healthcare facilities receiving Medicare/Medicaid funds
• Contractors receiving federal grants or assistance

Implementation and Scope

Immediate Effect

The final rule took effect upon publication in the Federal Register on December 10, 2025. The Department immediately ceased pursuing disparate-impact cases under Title VI and began reviewing existing investigations and enforcement actions for potential closure or modification.

Which Laws Are Affected

The rule directly modifies DOJ enforcement of:

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - prohibiting discrimination in federally funded programs
• Related provisions tied to Title VI enforcement across federal assistance programs

Which Laws Are NOT Affected

The final rule explicitly does not affect:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - employment discrimination in the private sector retains disparate impact liability
• Fair Housing Act - housing discrimination enforcement retains disparate impact framework
• State and local civil rights laws - many jurisdictions maintain independent disparate impact standards
• Other federal agencies’ regulations - some agencies may retain disparate impact frameworks for other statutes, though Executive Order 14281 directs government-wide elimination

However, the Department’s action signals intent to eliminate disparate impact enforcement across all federal civil rights laws where executive branch discretion permits.

Agencies Affected

The rule change affects civil rights enforcement by:

• Department of Justice Civil Rights Division - the primary federal civil rights enforcement agency
• Department of Education Office for Civil Rights - education discrimination enforcement
• Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights - healthcare discrimination enforcement
• Department of Transportation - transit and infrastructure civil rights compliance
• Environmental Protection Agency - environmental justice enforcement
• All federal agencies distributing financial assistance to state/local governments and private organizations

Legal and Constitutional Arguments

Administration’s Position

The Trump administration argues the disparate impact standard:

• Exceeds statutory authority granted by Title VI, which prohibits discrimination “on the ground of” race, requiring intentional action
• Conflicts with the Equal Protection Clause by requiring race-conscious decision-making to avoid disparate outcomes
• Imposes unreasonable compliance burdens on federally funded entities
• Contradicts Supreme Court precedent limiting Title VI’s scope

Officials characterize the change as “restoring true equality under the law” by eliminating what they describe as racial preferences and quotas.

Critics’ Counterarguments

Civil rights advocates and legal scholars contend:

Statutory Authority: The Supreme Court in Sandoval explicitly recognized agencies’ authority to adopt disparate impact regulations, and Congress has repeatedly reauthorized Title VI without eliminating this framework, demonstrating acceptance of the regulatory approach.

Constitutional Concerns: Disparate impact liability does not require racial preferences or quotas—it permits defendants to justify policies with legitimate purposes and provides safe harbors for bona fide requirements. The framework requires only that entities examine whether race-neutral alternatives could achieve legitimate goals with less discriminatory effect.

Practical Necessity: Modern discrimination rarely operates through explicit racial classifications. The intentional discrimination standard renders civil rights law largely ineffective against systemic inequality perpetuated through facially neutral mechanisms.

Historical Purpose: Title VI was enacted to ensure federal funds do not subsidize discrimination. Limiting enforcement to intentional discrimination allows federal dollars to support programs that perpetuate racial inequality as long as they avoid explicit racial references.

Potential Legal Challenges

Civil rights organizations are expected to challenge the rule change on multiple grounds:

Arbitrary and Capricious: The Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to provide reasoned explanation for policy changes, particularly when abandoning longstanding interpretations. The rule change may be vulnerable to challenge as inadequately justified given its departure from 50 years of settled practice.

Contrary to Statute: Challengers will argue Title VI’s text and legislative history support disparate impact enforcement, and that Congress’s repeated reauthorization of Title VI alongside existing regulations demonstrates approval of the framework.

Procedural Defects: The rulemaking process may face scrutiny regarding adequacy of notice, consideration of public comments, and analysis of impacts.

Separation of Powers: The rule change implements an executive order directing elimination of disparate impact “to the maximum degree possible,” potentially raising questions about whether the President can direct agencies to adopt specific statutory interpretations contrary to congressional intent.

Political and Historical Context

Ideological Opposition to Disparate Impact

Conservative legal scholars have long criticized disparate impact liability as:

• Creating “reverse discrimination” by pressuring entities to engage in racial balancing
• Exceeding statutory authority by inferring discrimination from statistical disparities
• Imposing compliance costs without corresponding civil rights benefits
• Contradicting constitutional principles of colorblindness

The Trump administration’s Executive Order 14281 reflects this ideological framework, characterizing disparate impact as promoting “racial preferences” and “quotas” rather than addressing discrimination.

Civil Rights Division Under Harmeet Dhillon

The elimination of disparate impact enforcement represents the culmination of a broader transformation of the DOJ Civil Rights Division under Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon.

Since taking office, Dhillon has:

• Terminated approximately 70% of Civil Rights Division attorneys
• Closed or reversed police misconduct investigations
• Ended voting rights enforcement actions
• Eliminated consent decrees addressing systemic discrimination
• Redirected resources toward investigating alleged “anti-white” and “anti-Christian” discrimination

Former Civil Rights Division staffers warned in public statements that the division has been “nearly destroyed” and that its core mission of protecting vulnerable populations from discrimination has been abandoned.

Executive Order 14281: “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy”

The final rule implements President Trump’s April 23, 2025 Executive Order directing federal agencies to eliminate disparate impact liability “in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.”

The order characterizes disparate impact as part of “illegal DEI preferences” and directs agencies to:

• Rescind regulations permitting disparate impact liability
• Cease enforcement actions based on statistical disparities
• Review existing consent decrees and settlements for potential modification
• Coordinate government-wide elimination of disparate impact frameworks

Implications and Consequences

Practical Impact on Civil Rights Enforcement

The intentional discrimination standard creates nearly insurmountable barriers to civil rights enforcement in modern contexts:

Evidentiary Burden: Proving intentional discrimination requires demonstrating that decision-makers consciously aimed to discriminate based on race. Such direct evidence is extraordinarily rare in contemporary cases where actors understand legal prohibitions and avoid creating documentary evidence of discriminatory intent.

Pretext and Motivation: Even when facially neutral justifications appear pretextual, plaintiffs must prove the stated reasons were false and that racial animus motivated the decision—a burden that fails in the absence of “smoking gun” evidence.

Structural and Systemic Discrimination: The intentional discrimination standard cannot address discrimination embedded in institutional structures, historical patterns, or decision-making processes that perpetuate inequality through facially neutral mechanisms.

Algorithmic Discrimination: As decision-making increasingly relies on algorithms and automated systems, the intentional discrimination standard becomes particularly ineffective. Statistical models can perpetuate historical biases without any individual intending to discriminate.

Impact on Settlements and Consent Decrees

The DOJ has announced it will review existing consent decrees and settlement agreements to determine whether they are based on disparate impact theories that the Department will no longer pursue.

This affects:

• Police department reform agreements addressing discriminatory policing patterns
• School district settlements resolving discriminatory discipline practices
• Housing authority agreements addressing segregative policies
• Environmental justice settlements addressing facility siting decisions

Many of these agreements may be terminated or substantially modified, potentially reversing years of progress toward addressing systemic discrimination.

State and Local Response

Some states and localities maintain civil rights laws with disparate impact frameworks that are independent of federal enforcement. These include:

• California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act
• New York State and City Human Rights Laws
• Massachusetts Civil Rights Act
• Various municipal civil rights ordinances

However, many jurisdictions rely substantially on federal enforcement, and the DOJ’s policy change may influence state and local approaches, particularly in jurisdictions without robust independent civil rights infrastructure.

International Human Rights Concerns

The elimination of disparate impact enforcement places the United States increasingly at odds with international human rights standards.

The United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which the United States has ratified, requires States Parties to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination “in all its forms,” including practices with discriminatory effects.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has repeatedly emphasized that addressing racial discrimination requires attention to both intentional discrimination and measures having discriminatory effects.

Responses and Reactions

Civil Rights Organizations

Major civil rights organizations issued strong condemnations:

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund called the rule change “a devastating blow to civil rights enforcement that will immunize policies perpetuating racial inequality as long as they avoid explicit racial classifications.”

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights stated: “By eliminating disparate impact enforcement, the Justice Department is abandoning millions of Americans experiencing discrimination through facially neutral policies that perpetuate historical inequalities.”

The ACLU characterized the change as “returning civil rights law to the pre-1964 era when only the most explicit forms of discrimination faced legal consequences.”

Legal Scholars

Civil rights law experts emphasized the rule’s profound implications:

Professor Sherrilyn Ifill, former President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, noted: “Disparate impact doctrine exists precisely because discrimination in modern America operates through policies that appear neutral on their face but perpetuate racial hierarchy. Eliminating this framework renders civil rights law ineffective against systemic inequality.”

Professor Richard Primus of the University of Michigan Law School observed: “The intentional discrimination standard reflects a cramped understanding of how discrimination operates. It assumes discrimination is primarily about individual animus rather than structural arrangements and institutional practices that systematically disadvantage racial minorities.”

Congressional Response

Democratic members of Congress introduced legislation to codify disparate impact liability explicitly in Title VI and other civil rights statutes, though passage faces substantial obstacles given Republican control of Congress.

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) stated: “This administration is systematically dismantling five decades of civil rights progress. We must act to preserve the tools that have been essential to combating systemic discrimination.”

Representative Joyce Beatty (D-OH), Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, announced plans for oversight hearings: “The elimination of disparate impact enforcement is a direct attack on communities of color. Congress has a responsibility to investigate and respond.”

State Attorneys General

Multiple Democratic state attorneys general announced they are reviewing options for legal challenges to the rule change.

New York Attorney General Letitia James stated: “The Justice Department’s abandonment of disparate impact enforcement abdicates the federal government’s responsibility to protect civil rights. New York will consider all legal options to challenge this unlawful rule change.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced: “California will not stand by while the federal government abandons civil rights enforcement. We are prepared to file suit challenging this rule as contrary to law and harmful to millions of Americans.”

Broader Context: Systematic Dismantling of Civil Rights Protections

The elimination of disparate impact enforcement is part of a comprehensive transformation of federal civil rights policy under the Trump administration, including:

• Civil Rights Division Purge: Termination of approximately 70% of Civil Rights Division attorneys, with remaining staff redirected toward investigating alleged discrimination against white people and Christians
• Voting Rights: Cessation of Department enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and termination of cases challenging voter suppression
• Police Accountability: Closure of pattern-or-practice investigations into police departments and termination of consent decrees
• Educational Equity: Elimination of enforcement addressing school segregation and discriminatory discipline
• Fair Housing: Reduced enforcement of housing discrimination laws
• Disability Rights: Diminished enforcement of Americans with Disabilities Act
• LGBTQ Rights: Elimination of protections for sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination

Collectively, these changes represent the most comprehensive rollback of federal civil rights enforcement since the pre-Civil Rights Act era.

Long-Term Implications

Perpetuation of Systemic Inequality

The elimination of disparate impact enforcement removes the primary legal tool for addressing systemic discrimination—patterns of inequality perpetuated through facially neutral policies and institutional structures.

Research consistently documents vast racial disparities across American society in:

• Wealth and income
• Educational opportunities and outcomes
• Health and life expectancy
• Exposure to environmental hazards
• Criminal justice involvement
• Housing quality and neighborhood conditions
• Access to credit and financial services

Many of these disparities result from policies that appear race-neutral but perpetuate historical discrimination or reflect structural biases. Without disparate impact enforcement, federal civil rights law provides minimal tools to address these patterns.

Incentive Effects

The intentional discrimination standard creates perverse incentives for sophisticated actors:

Organizations can implement discriminatory policies with impunity as long as they:

• Avoid explicit racial classifications
• Provide facially legitimate justifications
• Refrain from creating documentary evidence of discriminatory intent
• Use neutral criteria that correlate with race to achieve discriminatory outcomes

This framework rewards strategic behavior aimed at achieving discriminatory results through formally neutral means.

Algorithmic and Data-Driven Discrimination

As decision-making increasingly relies on algorithms, statistical models, and automated systems, the elimination of disparate impact enforcement becomes particularly consequential.

Machine learning systems trained on historical data inevitably perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination. Without disparate impact liability, there is minimal legal pressure to audit these systems for discriminatory effects or to develop alternative approaches.

Democratic Legitimacy

The rule change raises fundamental questions about democratic governance and the role of federal civil rights enforcement.

Congress enacted Title VI in 1964 as part of a comprehensive civil rights framework, and has repeatedly reauthorized it alongside agency regulations incorporating disparate impact standards. The executive branch’s unilateral decision to eliminate this framework—without congressional action—arguably contradicts democratic processes and separation of powers principles.

Conclusion

The Department of Justice’s elimination of disparate impact liability from Title VI enforcement represents one of the most consequential civil rights policy changes in modern American history. By restricting federal civil rights enforcement to cases of proven intentional discrimination, the rule change removes the primary legal framework for addressing systemic inequality perpetuated through facially neutral policies and institutional structures.

The practical effect is to immunize a vast range of discriminatory practices from federal civil rights enforcement as long as they avoid explicit racial classifications. Lending discrimination, educational inequities, environmental racism, discriminatory policing, voting barriers, and countless other forms of systemic discrimination will continue unabated unless plaintiffs can prove—often with little available evidence—that decision-makers consciously intended to discriminate based on race.

This change occurs within the broader context of systematic dismantling of federal civil rights enforcement, including purges of Civil Rights Division staff, termination of police accountability investigations, abandonment of voting rights enforcement, and elimination of protections across multiple domains.

The long-term implications are profound: perpetuation of systemic racial inequality, erosion of federal civil rights enforcement capacity, and fundamental transformation of civil rights law from a framework addressing structural discrimination to one limited to the most explicit forms of individual animus.

Whether through congressional action, litigation, or state and local responses, the elimination of disparate impact enforcement will likely remain contested terrain in American civil rights law for years to come. What is clear is that December 9, 2025 marks a historic inflection point—the day the federal government formally withdrew from the project of addressing systemic racial inequality through legal enforcement mechanisms.

Sources

• Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. “Department of Justice Rule Restores Equal Protection for All in Civil Rights Enforcement.” December 9, 2025. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-rule-restores-equal-protection-all-civil-rights-enforcement

• Federal Register. “Rescinding Portions of Department of Justice Title VI Regulations To Conform More Closely With the Statutory Text and To Implement Executive Order 14281.” Vol. 90, No. 238, December 10, 2025. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/10/2025-22448/

• Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. “Department of Justice Eliminates Title VI Disparate Impact Regulations.” Client Memorandum, December 2025. https://www.sullcrom.com/insights/memo/2025/December/Department-Justice-Eliminates-Title-VI-Disparate-Impact-Regulations

• McGuireWoods. “DOJ Promulgates Final Rule Removing Disparate Impact Regulations Under Title VI.” December 2025. https://www.mcguirewoods.com/client-resources/alerts/2025/12/doj-promulgates-final-rule-removing-disparate-impact-regulations-under-title-vi/

• Ogletree Deakins. “Justice Department Erases Disparate Impact Liability From Title VI Enforcement Regulations.” December 2025. https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/justice-department-erases-disparate-impact-liability-from-title-vi-enforcement-regulations/

• Harvard Environmental & Energy Law Program. “DOJ Eliminated Its Disparate Impact Regulations.” Climate Deregulation Tracker. https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/tracker/rollback-executive-order-directed-agencies-to-eliminate-use-and-enforcement-of-disparate-impact-standard/