Also known as: racially discriminatory purposes · discriminatory purpose · racial purpose
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The intent to disadvantage members of a particular racial group. A facially neutral law or policy produces an equal protection violation only when decisionmakers adopt or maintain it at least in part because of its adverse effect on that group.
Rowan Russell, a Black applicant, fails a written police exam at a higher rate than white candidates. The city adopted the test to measure abstract reasoning and shows no evidence it chose the format to exclude minority applicants. Because the exam produces only disparate impact without racially discriminatory purpose, the policy survives equal protection review.
Regina Robinson challenges a state law criminalizing same-sex intimacy. The statute applies equally to all persons and contains no statements or history showing adoption to disadvantage any racial group. Absent racially discriminatory purpose, the law receives rational-basis review rather than strict scrutiny.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Riley Rivera, a Black defendant sentenced to death, presents statistical evidence that the penalty falls more heavily on Black defendants. The legislature enacted and retained the statute for legitimate penological reasons and without any showing it acted because of anticipated racial effects. The absence of racially discriminatory purpose defeats the equal protection claim.
Rebecca Ross, a female applicant, loses a civil service position to a less-qualified veteran under a state preference law. The preference rewards military service and was not adopted to exclude women. Without proof of racially discriminatory purpose or sex-based animus, the policy withstands equal protection challenge.
Roberto Reyes, a Black resident, faces eviction under a city ordinance limiting households to nuclear families. The ordinance was enacted for traffic and density reasons with no evidence officials targeted minority extended-family patterns. The lack of racially discriminatory purpose prevents an equal protection violation.
Robert Rivera challenges a state voting law that reduces minority turnout in certain districts. The legislature enacted the measure for administrative efficiency and without any finding or evidence it acted to diminish minority voting strength on account of race. Absent racially discriminatory purpose, the statute does not violate the Fifteenth Amendment.
No. A facially neutral policy that produces a racial disparity violates equal protection only when the government adopted or maintained the policy at least in part because of its adverse effect on a racial group.
Supporting sources
Contemporaneous statements by decisionmakers, the sequence of events leading to adoption, departures from normal procedures, and the fit between the rule and its racial effects can support an inference of purpose.
Supporting sources
No. The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race. A state may not structure qualifications as a proxy for race when those qualifications are adopted or maintained at least in part because of their adverse effect on a racial group.
Supporting sources
No. Statistical evidence of disparate impact is relevant but insufficient by itself. The claimant must show that the legislature enacted or maintained the statute because of an anticipated racially discriminatory effect.
Supporting sources
…the usual rational-basis review, because the Virginia statute was "designed to maintain White Supremacy." Id. , at 6, 11. A racially discriminatory purpose is always sufficient to subject a law to strict scrutiny, even a facially neutral law that makes no mention of race. See Washington v. Davis , 426 U. S. 229, 241-242 (1976). No purpose to…