Also known as: race neutral · raceneutral · color-blind
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A criterion, explanation, or policy that avoids any consideration of or reliance upon an individual's race. Such a measure satisfies constitutional requirements when a governmental actor must rebut a prima facie showing of racial discrimination by demonstrating that its action rests on grounds unrelated to race.
Raymond Ramos, a Black defendant on trial for robbery, objects when the prosecutor strikes the only two Black venire members. The prosecutor states that both jurors work night shifts and appeared inattentive during voir dire. The trial court accepts the explanation as unrelated to race and seats the jury.
Maria Lopez, a Black employee, is denied a promotion after missing work under a uniformly enforced no-excuse attendance policy. She claims the policy has a disparate racial impact. The court upholds the denial because the rule is race-neutral on its face and applies without regard to any individual's race.
Regina Robinson's children are denied assignment to their preferred Seattle high school under a plan that uses race as a tiebreaker when schools are oversubscribed. The district claims the plan promotes diversity. The Court holds that the explicit racial classification fails strict scrutiny because the district did not seriously consider workable alternatives that do not classify by race.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Riley Rivera, a white applicant denied admission to the University of Texas, challenges the school's use of race in holistic review. The university demonstrates that it continually evaluates whether race-neutral methods such as percentage plans or increased outreach could achieve sufficient diversity. The Court remands for determination whether those alternatives were adequately considered.
Rosa Ruiz, a white applicant, is denied admission to the University of California Davis medical school under a program that reserves sixteen seats exclusively for minority applicants. The Court holds that the rigid racial quota violates equal protection because it precludes individualized consideration and because the school failed to show that race-neutral alternatives could not achieve diversity.
Roland Rhodes and other white firefighters who passed a promotion exam sue after the city discards the results because no Black candidates scored high enough. The city claims concern over disparate impact liability. The Court holds that the city must have a strong basis in evidence of an actual violation before it may engage in race-conscious action to avoid that liability.
A defendant establishes a prima facie case by showing that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges to remove members of a cognizable racial group and that the circumstances raise an inference of purposeful discrimination. Once the prima facie case is made, the burden shifts to the striking party to articulate a race-neutral explanation for each strike.
The explanation need not be persuasive or even plausible at the second step. It must simply be race-neutral on its face. The trial court then determines at the third step whether the opponent has proved purposeful discrimination, often by assessing whether the stated reason is pretextual.
A university must show that race-neutral alternatives would not produce the educational benefits of diversity. Narrow tailoring requires serious, good-faith consideration of such alternatives, and the university bears the burden of proving that race is necessary to achieve its diversity goals.
…to this case necessarily be incompatible with our equal protection cases. Cf. Rogers v. Lodge , 458 U. S. 613, 618 (1982) (race-neutral law that “‘bears more heavily on one race than another’” may violate equal protection) (citation omitted); Castaneda v. Partida , 430 U. S. 482, 492-495 (1977) (grand jury selection). We…