View in EDS

Disparate-Impact Theory Is Unconstitutional.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Disparate-Impact Theory Is Unconstitutional.
Authors: Foley, Elizabeth Price (AUTHOR), Torchinsky, Jason (AUTHOR)
Source: Wall Street Journal - Online Edition. 12/15/2025, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p.
Subjects: Disparate impact (Law), Constitutional law, United States. Supreme Court, Civil Rights Act of 1991, Actions & defenses (Law), United States. Dept. of Justice, Appellate courts, Equality, Race discrimination
Abstract: The article discusses the recent decision by the Justice Department to eliminate "disparate impact" liability under a section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon claims will restore true equality by requiring proof of actual discrimination. Disparate impact theory allows plaintiffs to win cases based on statistical disparities without needing to demonstrate intent to discriminate, a concept that has faced legal challenges and mixed rulings from the Supreme Court over the years. The article highlights historical cases, including Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, which shaped the application of this theory, and argues that the elimination of disparate impact regulations may not fully resolve constitutional concerns surrounding equal protection. The authors suggest that litigation challenging disparate-impact liability may be necessary for a long-term solution. [Extracted from the article]
Copyright of Wall Street Journal - Online Edition is the property of Dow Jones & Company Inc and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Regional Business News
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: bwh
DbLabel: Regional Business News
An: 190262383
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: News
PubTypeId: newspaperArticle
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Disparate-Impact Theory Is Unconstitutional.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Foley%2C+Elizabeth+Price%22">Foley, Elizabeth Price</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Torchinsky%2C+Jason%22">Torchinsky, Jason</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Wall+Street+Journal+-+Online+Edition%22">Wall Street Journal - Online Edition</searchLink>. 12/15/2025, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disparate+impact+%28Law%29%22">Disparate impact (Law)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Constitutional+law%22">Constitutional law</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+States%2E+Supreme+Court%22">United States. Supreme Court</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Civil+Rights+Act+of+1991%22">Civil Rights Act of 1991</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Actions+%26+defenses+%28Law%29%22">Actions & defenses (Law)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+States%2E+Dept%2E+of+Justice%22">United States. Dept. of Justice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Appellate+courts%22">Appellate courts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equality%22">Equality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Race+discrimination%22">Race discrimination</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The article discusses the recent decision by the Justice Department to eliminate "disparate impact" liability under a section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon claims will restore true equality by requiring proof of actual discrimination. Disparate impact theory allows plaintiffs to win cases based on statistical disparities without needing to demonstrate intent to discriminate, a concept that has faced legal challenges and mixed rulings from the Supreme Court over the years. The article highlights historical cases, including Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, which shaped the application of this theory, and argues that the elimination of disparate impact regulations may not fully resolve constitutional concerns surrounding equal protection. The authors suggest that litigation challenging disparate-impact liability may be necessary for a long-term solution. [Extracted from the article]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Wall Street Journal - Online Edition is the property of Dow Jones & Company Inc and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=bwh&AN=190262383
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 1
        StartPage: N.PAG
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Disparate impact (Law)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Constitutional law
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United States. Supreme Court
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Civil Rights Act of 1991
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Actions & defenses (Law)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United States. Dept. of Justice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Appellate courts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equality
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Race discrimination
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Disparate-Impact Theory Is Unconstitutional.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Foley, Elizabeth Price
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Torchinsky, Jason
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 15
              M: 12
              Text: 12/15/2025
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 25749579
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Wall Street Journal - Online Edition
              Type: main
ResultId 1