Race-based remedies require proving both discriminatory intent and impact

Evidence

When it comes to allowing race-based remedies, the Supreme Court requires evidence of discriminatory intent as well as discriminatory impact. It wouldn’t matter that the government caused the problem by discriminating against the very racial group that would benefit from this new tax subsidy, as long as the federal government can claim that it didn’t intend these tax policies to be discriminatory. — Dorothy A. Brown, Getting to Reparations, 1296

Categorization

• DEFINE: The intent-plus-impact standard is the legal constraint that pushes her from explicit race-based to neighborhood/wealth-based targeting.
• QUESTION: Track which later remedies sidestep intent-vs-impact and which do not, since that litigation liability is the core objection she must answer.
• XREF: connects to: Since 1976 courts require proof of individual intent to find race discrimination — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental…, 326; Title VI regulations allow discrimination suits on discriminatory effect while the statute demands intent — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental…, 1007; Washington v. Davis made discriminatory intent a prerequisite for equal-protection race claims. — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental…, 1038 (+1 more)