Courts require proof of discriminatory intent, not just disparate impact, to protect Muslims

Evidence

Each time a Muslim plaintiff challenged national security practices on First, Fourth, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendment grounds, courts dismissed the claims because the plaintiff could not prove the government intended to discriminate on the basis of the plaintiff’s religion. Instead, courts accepted government claims that its policies and practices were rationally aimed to secure the nation, not target Muslims. Since the US Supreme Court ruling in Washington v. Davis in 1976, proving a disparate adverse impact on a minority group has been insufficient to win a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim. — Sahar F. Aziz, The Racial Muslim, 59

Categorization

• QUESTION: For the reader’s thread: does Washington v. Davis’s intent requirement force Muslim claims into statutory (Title VI/VII) rather than constitutional channels?
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s interest in Bostock-era statutory interpretation versus constitutional equal-protection doctrine. — connects to: Courts confer epistemic authority on false Islamophobic claims — Cyra Akila Choudhury, Racecraft and Identity in the Emergence…, 390; Courts dismiss anti-Muslim harassment as stray remarks excused as ignorance or protected political speech — Sahar F. Aziz, Sticks and Stones, the Words That Hurt:…, 427; Courts deny Muslims race discrimination protection absent proof of self-unification. — Mareike Riedel, Islamophobia, Racial Discrimination…, 55 (+3 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Sahar F. Aziz, The Racial Muslim: When Racism Quashes…, 59