Intent-to-discriminate requirements block Muslim equal protection claims

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 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: 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; Equal protection lawsuits over waste siting fail on the intent requirement — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental…, 1121 (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• Courts require proof of discriminatory intent, not just disparate impact, to protect Muslims #expands (0.95) — Sahar F. Aziz, The Racial Muslim, 59
• Muslims’ racial diversity undermines race-based legal claims #complicates (0.72)