January 2019: An Internal DOJ Memo Directed Officials To How Disparate Impact Regulations Might Be Changed Or Removed. According to the Washington Post, “The Trump administration is considering a far-reaching rollback of civil rights law that would dilute federal rules against discrimination in education, housing and other aspects of American life, people familiar with the discussions said. A recent internal Justice Department memo directed senior civil rights officials to examine how decades-old “disparate impact” regulations might be changed or removed in their areas of expertise, and what the impact might be, according to people familiar with the matter. Similar action is being considered at the Education Department and is underway at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Under the concept of disparate impact, actions can amount to discrimination if they have an uneven effect even if that was not the intent, and rolling back this approach has been a longtime goal of conservative legal thinkers. Past Republican administrations have done little to erode the concept’s application, partly out of concerns that the Supreme Court might disagree, or that such changes would be unpopular and viewed as racist.” [Washington Post, 1/3/19]
Similar To The Department Of Justice Disparate Impact Memo, The Education Department And Housing And Urban Development Also Considered Actions Against Disparate Impact. According to the Washington Post, “The Trump administration is considering a far-reaching rollback of civil rights law that would dilute federal rules against discrimination in education, housing and other aspects of American life, people familiar with the discussions said. A recent internal Justice Department memo directed senior civil rights officials to examine how decades-old “disparate impact” regulations might be changed or removed in their areas of expertise, and what the impact might be, according to people familiar with the matter. Similar action is being considered at the Education Department and is underway at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Under the concept of disparate impact, actions can amount to discrimination if they have an uneven effect even if that was not the intent, and rolling back this approach has been a longtime goal of conservative legal thinkers. Past Republican administrations have done little to erode the concept’s application, partly out of concerns that the Supreme Court might disagree, or that such changes would be unpopular and viewed as racist.” [Washington Post, 1/3/19]
Cornell Law School: “Disparate Impact (Also ‘Adverse Impact’) Commonly Refers To Unintentional Discriminatory Practice.” According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, “Disparate impact (also ‘adverse impact’) commonly refers to unintentional discriminatory practice.” [Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, accessed [3/19/24](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/disparate_impact#:~:text=Disparate impact (also “adverse impact,refers to intentional discriminatory practice.)]
Under Trump’s FY 2018 Budget Proposal, The Education Department’s Office Of Civil Rights Would Have Seen Significant Staffing Cuts. According to the Washington Post, “Under President Trump’s proposed budget, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights — which has investigated thousands of complaints of discrimination in school districts across the country and set new standards for how colleges should respond to allegations of sexual assault and harassment — would also see significant staffing cuts. Administration officials acknowledge in budget documents that the civil rights office will have to scale back the number of investigations it conducts and limit travel to school districts to carry out its work […] In Education Department budget documents, the administration acknowledges that proposed funding levels would hamper the work of that department’s civil rights office. The budget would reduce staffing by more than 40 employees. ‘To address steady increases in the number of complaints received and decreased staffing levels, OCR must make difficult choices,’ the budget documents say. ‘OCR’s enforcement staff will be limited in conducting onsite investigations and monitoring, and OCR’s ability to achieve greater coordination and communication regarding core activities will be greatly diminished.’” [Washington Post, 5/29/17]
December 2017: The Department Of Education Announced Major Staff Cuts To The Office For Civil Rights, Undermining The Response To Racial Discrimination Throughout Public Schools. According to the Wall Street Journal, “The Education Department is cutting staff at its Office for Civil Rights as part of a push to reduce Washington’s footprint in education. But critics say the move will blunt the office’s response to issues like sexual assault on college campuses and racial discrimination in public schools. The department has offered voluntary buyouts overall to 207 employees as part of a broad staff reduction there, officials say. Of those, 45 offers were made in the civil rights office, the most for any unit in the department. The office with the next highest number of departures is Federal Student aid, where 36 employees were offered buyouts. Department officials say the offers are aimed at employees reaching retirement age. Liz Hill, a department spokeswoman, also said the numbers reflect the fact that the civil rights office is the single largest in the agency, with about one-eighth of the total staff.” [Wall Street Journal, 12/15/17]
Trump’s Education Department Scaled Back Investigations Into Civil Rights Violations In The Public School System. According to the New York Times, “The Department of Education is scaling back investigations into civil rights violations at the nation’s public schools and universities, easing off mandates imposed by the Obama administration that the new leadership says have bogged down the agency. According to an internal memo issued by Candice E. Jackson, the acting head of the department’s office for civil rights, requirements that investigators broaden their inquiries to identify systemic issues and whole classes of victims will be scaled back. Also, regional offices will no longer be required to alert department officials in Washington of all highly sensitive complaints on issues such as the disproportionate disciplining of minority students and the mishandling of sexual assaults on college campuses.” [New York Times, 6/16/17]
DeVos Planned To Roll Back Obama-Era Policies Aimed At Ensuring That Minority Students Are Not Unfairly Disciplined. According to the New York Times, “The Trump administration is planning to roll back Obama-era policies aimed at ensuring that minority children are not unfairly disciplined, arguing that the efforts have eased up on punishment and contributed to rising violence in the nation’s schools, according to documents obtained by The New York Times. The decision culminates a nearly yearlong effort begun by the Trump administration after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. The deaths of 17 students and staff members on Feb. 14 prompted lawmakers in both parties to demand tougher gun laws, but after a brief flirtation with gun control, President Trump abandoned that focus and instead empowered a school safety commission, led by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.” [New York Times, 12/17/18]
March 2019: A Federal Court Ruled That The Obama-Era Regulation Delayed By DeVos For Two Years Had To Take Effect Immediately. According to the Washington Post, “A federal court ruled this week that an Obama-era regulation designed to ensure children of color are not disproportionately punished or sent to special-education classrooms must take effect immediately. Published in the final days of the Obama administration, the rules were supposed to have taken effect in 2018. But Education Secretary Betsy DeVos moved in the summer to delay them for two years. The decision, issued Thursday, is a rebuke of her action.” [Washington Post, 3/8/19]
HUD Proposed Rule To Give Discriminatory Landlords An Out With Indemnity Against Consequences For Discrimination, Undermining The Point Of Disparate Impact Rules, So Long As They Use An Algorithm From A Third Party. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “In addition to making it harder for a plaintiff to prove their case, HUD’s proposed standard would create several new ways for defendants to shield themselves from liability even if the plaintiff proves that the policy or practice disproportionately harms members of a protected class. For example, defendants could avoid liability if they relied on a model or algorithm that was ‘produced, maintained, or distributed by a recognized third party that determines industry standards.’ But even sophisticated algorithms that seem neutral can cause discriminatory effects, emerging evidence suggests. Researchers, for instance, are raising concerns that automated hiring practices that use algorithms can cause racial and gender disparities in hiring.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 10/18/19]
April 2020: The Trump Administration Finalized Rule Rolling Back Protections Against Disparate Impact. According to regulations.gov, “FR-6111-P-02 HUD’s Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Disparate Impact Standard” had a final action on “04/00/2020” and is “Final Rule.” [regulations.gov, Accessed 6/30/20]
The Trump Administration Worked To End Obama-Era Housing Discrimination Rules Ultimately Reducing The Amount Of Data Collected To Track Discriminatory Practices In The Mortgage Markets. According to Politico, “The Trump administration is working to roll back former President Barack Obama’s efforts to combat racial segregation — potentially making it easier for banks to deny loans to black and Hispanic people or for cities to confine poor families to minority neighborhoods. One Trump Cabinet member, Housing secretary Ben Carson, is moving to scrap an Obama policy withholding federal funds from cities if they don’t address segregation. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed cutting back on collecting data that helps track discrimination in the mortgage market. And activists warn that a Trump financial regulator could encourage banks to invest in inner-city projects benefiting outsiders instead of local residents.” [Politico, 1/25/20]
May 2019: Trump’s CFPB Announced A Proposed Rule To Exempt Small Mortgage Lenders From Anti-Discrimination Data Reporting Requirements. According to ThinkProgress, “Mortgage lenders will find it easier to discriminate against prospective borrowers under the latest quiet sabotage of financial industry rules proposed by the Trump administration. The new rollbacks take a two-pronged approach to undermining a relatively new system that’s helped journalists and watchdogs identify prejudicial lending practices they characterize as modern-day redlining. During the Obama administration, the CFPB played an instrumental role in earning settlements against banks accused of racial discrimination. These changes would do harm to the agency’s continued ability to be a cop on this particular beat. One proposed regulation would end mortgage data reporting requirements for relatively small lenders who issue dozens of loans per year, while leaving them in place for the industry leaders who sell hundreds or thousands of home loans annually.” [ThinkProgress, 5/4/19]
October 2019: Trump’s CFPB Finalized The Rule, And Gave Smaller Mortgage Lenders An Additional Two Years To Not Have To Report Anti-Discrimination Data. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) today issued a rule which finalizes certain aspects of its May 2019 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). It extends for two years the current temporary threshold for collecting and reporting data about open-end lines of credit under HMDA. The rule also clarifies partial exemptions from certain HMDA requirements which Congress added in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA). For open-end lines of credit, the rule extends for another two years, until January 1, 2022, the current temporary coverage threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit. For data collection years 2020 and 2021, financial institutions that originated fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years will not need to collect and report data with respect to open-end lines of credit.” [Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, 10/10/19]
Roughly 1 Million Of The 8 Million Loans With Current Data Would No Longer Be Subject To Reporting Requirements. According to ThinkProgress, “And the robust national data analysis that’s only recently become possible thanks to post-financial crisis regulatory changes wrought by the Dodd-Frank legislation would be substantially weaker, as roughly a million of the 8 million loans currently covered by anti-discrimination data disclosure rules established by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) would fall out of the tracking systems researchers have historically used to show systematic racism persists in the mortgage business.” [ThinkProgress, 5/4/19]
Trump Attempted To Roll Back The Fair Housing Act. According to Politico, “‘They’re trying to eliminate the ability to enforce fair housing,’ said Lisa Rice, president and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance. ‘They do not want to promote fair housing. They do not want to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination.’ One of President Donald Trump’s targets is the same law — the Fair Housing Act — that his family real estate company was accused of violating in the 1970s for trying to keep black people from renting Trump apartments.” [Politico, 1/25/20]
Trump Settled A Case With Nixon’s Justice Department For Violation Of The Fair Housing Act According to Politico, One of President Donald Trump’s targets is the same law — the Fair Housing Act — that his family real estate company was accused of violating in the 1970s for trying to keep black people from renting Trump apartments.
The Trump Organization settled the case, brought by former President Richard Nixon’s Justice Department, and Trump himself has always denied the charges of racial bias.” [Politico, 1/25/20]
August 2018: Trump’s Justice Department Signaled That It Supported A Group Of Asian Americans Alleging They Were Discriminated Against By Harvard University Through Its Use Of Affirmative Action Policies In Admissions Decisions. According to the Los Angeles Times, “In a major boost for a group of Asian Americans suing Harvard University over its affirmative action admissions policy, the Trump administration on Thursday signaled its support of a federal lawsuit against the university and contended that it illegally discriminates against Asian applicants in favor of whites. The move by the Justice Department is the latest sign in what many civil rights groups contend is the administration’s mounting attack on long-standing practices in which Harvard and other universities have used race as a factor in choosing who attends elite public and private schools. The suit, filed by Students for Fair Admissions on behalf of Asian Americans who have been rejected from Harvard, is seen as a bellwether case that could reach the Supreme Court and potentially reshape affirmative action at America’s universities and colleges.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/30/18]
Trump’s Justice Department Filed A Brief That Said Harvard Illegally Tried To Racially Balance Its Student Body And Therefore, Denied Asian Americans Spots. According to the Los Angeles Times, “In a filing Thursday in a Massachusetts federal court, Justice Department lawyers said Harvard illegally tries to “racially balance” its students, including using subjective personality ratings that give Asian Americans with otherwise stellar applications lower scores.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/30/18]
February 2020: The Justice Department Filed An Amicus Brief In Support Of The Appeal. According to Inside Higher Ed, “The Trump administration last week endorsed the appeal of a federal judge's decision that Harvard University's consideration of race in admissions was legal. The White House's decision was not a surprise; the administration backed the lawsuit against Harvard at the federal district court. But the brief filed is an indication of the arguments the administration will make, both on Harvard and on other universities. The amicus brief outlines two major arguments against Harvard's use of affirmative action. The first was that Harvard failed to prove "that its use of race is narrowly tailored.” [Inside Higher Ed, 3/2/20]