Justice Dept. Announces Policy Change
To Eliminate “Disparate Impact” Assessments
The Justice Department plans to stop using the concept of disparate impact in assessing civil rights violations in another move that is increasing allegations of racism against President Donald Trump and his administration.
Disparate impact refers to policies or practices that are neutral on their face, but disproportionately harm one racial group, even when there is no intent to discriminate.
Previously, the Justice Department used statistical disparities to prove racial discrimination that might violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Disparate impact statistics also are used by lawmakers to set policies intended to alleviate racial discrimination.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said last week that the current system has "for far too long required recipients of federal funding to make decisions based on race."
The move was welcomed by conservative Republicans but denounced by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The NAACP says the policy change would eliminate important protections against discrimination.
In recent days, Trump has endured stiff criticism for his comments that his critics say are racist.
He said immigrants from “Third World countries” like Somalia should go “back to where they came from.” He called the Somalis “garbage.”
He also said he wished the United States would get more immigrants from countries like Norway and Sweden, both of which have overwhelmingly white populations.
Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of “race, color, or national origin.” The Justice Department has used its disparate impact standard for the past 50 years to counter discrimination in housing, criminal law enforcement, employment and environmental regulations.
The attorney general’s announcement Tuesday fulfills an executive order Trump signed directing the Justice Department to get rid of disparate impact liabilities whenever it is practical.
An NAACP statement accused the Trump administration of “undermining the very laws that keep people protected from discrimination.”
The statement added, “Removing the Department of Justice’s regulations prohibiting unfair discriminatory policies takes away critical safeguards against the most insidious forms of exclusion” in criminal law, employment and government services.
Justice Department officials said eliminating the disparate impact rule would reduce petty lawsuits.
“The prior ‘disparate impact’ regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination,” Justice Department civil rights chief Harmeet Dhillon said in a statement. “Our rejection of this theory will restore true equality under the law by requiring proof of actual discrimination, rather than enforcing race- or sex-based quotas or assumptions.”
Adding to the controversy was the procedure for revising the Justice Department standard. It was done without public notice or a comment period, which normally are required under the federal Administrative Procedure Act.
For the Justice Department, the new rules took effect last week. The Trump administration plans to extend the same policy to other regulatory agencies.
The Justice Department argues that disparate impact policies violate civil rights under the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. The clause says the laws are supposed to be applied equally to everyone, regardless of race, religion, national origin or other social status issues.
Disparate impact “encourages and, in some cases, requires covered entities to engage in the intentional use of race and racial balancing to eliminate those disparate outcomes by treating certain racial groups differently from others,” a Justice Department statement says.
The same day the attorney general announced the policy change, more than 200 former Justice Department civil rights attorneys published an open letter warning, “The future of the Civil Rights Division is in jeopardy, and with it, the rights it protects.”
“For decades, the non-partisan work of the Civil Rights Division … ensured children could attend accessible and integrated schools, protected people from abuse by police or the juvenile justice system, defended voting rights, and fought discrimination in housing and the workplace,” the letter says.
Now, the Trump administration is turning the Justice Department civil rights division’s “core mission upside down, largely abandoning its duty to protect civil rights,” the letter says.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Trump Executive Order on AI
Preempts State Regulations
President Donald Trump is running headlong into a dispute with states over artificial intelligence regulation after signing an executive order last week giving the federal government exclusive control.
The order seeks to block states from enforcing their own artificial intelligence rules.
In the past year, 38 states have passed laws restricting how artificial intelligence is marketed and used. Hundreds of state-level bills are pending.
The most recent was last week, when New York’s governor signed a law requiring disclosure for the use of artificial intelligence-generated "synthetic" performers in advertisements. It also bans digital replicas of deceased persons' voices or likenesses without consent of their next-of-kin.
"Without notice that the content the public is viewing is not real, AI generated synthetic performers and manipulated media can undermine one's ability to accurately distill fact from fiction," New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said in a statement.
Trump argues that a “patchwork” of state laws could embroil developers in litigation and other regulatory roadblocks that impede their competitiveness.
He also says federal control would help the United States lead the artificial intelligence industry, particularly in competition with China.
"We want to have one central source of approval," Trump said during a press conference Thursday.
The executive order directs the U.S. attorney general to establish an “AI Litigation Task Force” to challenge state laws the Trump administration considers inconsistent with the federal policy of maintaining a "minimally burdensome" regulatory framework.
The president was spurred to action by technology companies that complained about obstacles they face from local authorities as they invest billions of dollars into data centers, computer chips and software for artificial intelligence.
California leads in much of the artificial intelligence regulation.
One California law requires internet companies to regularly remind users when they interact with chatbots. The law is supposed to protect children from the potentially harmful influence of computer-generated personalities.
A second California law requires artificial intelligence developers to identify and take steps to avoid potential catastrophes from their programs.
Major artificial intelligence developers like OpenAI, Microsoft and Meta face numerous lawsuits from media companies and authors over use of copyrighted material to train generative AI models. Issues raised in the lawsuits have sometimes been used by states to codify regulations, similar to the New York law this week.
In addition, a coalition of state attorneys general recently sent letters to major tech companies saying their artificial intelligence models have sometimes encouraged violence, sexual activity or self-harm among children. They warned that their artificial intelligence could violate state criminal laws, possibly leading to prosecution.
Trump’s executive order appears to preempt any enforcement action by the attorneys general.
It requires the Commerce Department to identify “onerous” state laws that might impede artificial intelligence development. It also threatens to cut off federal telecommunications funding to states that refuse to comply with the executive order.
Trump says international competitiveness is the higher priority.
“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation. But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative,” the executive order says.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, was one of the critics of the executive order.
"Today, President Trump continued his ongoing grift in the White House, attempting to enrich himself and his associates, with a new executive order seeking to preempt state laws protecting Americans from unregulated AI technology," he said in a statement.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Historic Preservationists Sue to Stop
New White House Ballroom Project
A historic preservation group is suing the Trump administration to stop construction of a huge ballroom on the East Wing of the White House.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s lawsuit asks for a court order to block further construction until the project has received public comment and approvals from the National Capital Planning Commission, a panel that normally must approve changes to historic sites in Washington, D.C.
“No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever — not President Trump, not President Biden, and not anyone else,” says the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.
“And no president is legally allowed to construct a ballroom on public property without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in,” the suit said.
The 90,000-square foot ballroom, expected to cost $300 million, would be bigger than the entire rest of the White House, which covers about 55,000 square feet.
The East Wing already has been torn down. Construction started in October and is scheduled for completion in 2029.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a private, congressionally-chartered nonprofit that protects and manages historic sites, buildings, and cultural heritage across the United States.
“As the organization charged with protecting places where our history happened, the National Trust was compelled to file this case,” Carol Quillen, the group’s president, said in a statement.
The lawsuit names as defendants Trump, the National Park Service, the Department of Interior, and the General Services Administration.
White House officials deny they are completely ignoring the federal review process.
Will Scharf, the chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission and a presidential staff secretary, said federal review rules cover design, not demolition for new projects. He said the Trump administration would submit its plan for the ballroom for review by the commission this month.
The lawsuit says the review “should have taken place before the Defendants demolished the East Wing, and before they began construction of the Ballroom.”
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Government Admits to Negligence
In Aircraft Collision Over D.C. Airport
A U.S. government court filing last week in the lawsuit resulting from the Jan. 29 collision over Reagan National Airport that killed 67 people acknowledges that the government was at fault.
It said the Army helicopter pilot was flying too high over the 200-foot limit allowed over the airport.
It also blamed an air traffic controller for failing to follow visual separation procedures between aircraft before the nighttime collision.
That evening, an American Airlines regional jet was on final approach to Reagan National Airport when it collided with the Army Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River. All 64 people on the jet and the three Army personnel on a training flight were killed.
The helicopter pilot's “failure to maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid” the passenger jet makes the government liable, the court filing said.
Government attorneys blamed the airline and the American Eagle pilots for contributing to the negligence but not enough to eliminate the fault of the helicopter pilot and the air traffic controller.
The collision occurred nearly 300 feet over the airport. The passenger jet was carrying a team of figure skaters from a competition in Wichita, Kansas. All the victims died almost instantly.
As a direct result of the collision, the Senate last week passed the "ROTOR Act." It stands for Rotorcraft Operations Transparency and Oversight Reform Act.
It would require all aircraft to be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveilland-Broadcast technology. The devices constantly broadcast their position to alert nearby aircraft while receiving positional data from other aircraft. A companion bill is pending in the House.
The Rotor Act would override a Defense Department policy that allows military helicopters to operate with some degree of secrecy as a security measure.
The admission of wrongdoing in the court filing in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., means there is no doubt family members of the deceased airline passengers will receive large amounts of compensation. The only question now is how much.
FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said the crash reinforces the need to update the air traffic control system. He told Congress that the update is set for completion in three years.
He acknowledged that the accident exposed safety gaps, particularly where the military shares airspace over crowded civilian airports.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Justice Dept. Sues States
To Get Voters’ Personal Data
The Justice Department is suing the District of Columbia and three states in an attempt to get the lists of their registered voters.
In each case, the states and D.C. refuse to turn over the information. They cite local laws intended to protect the privacy of voters.
The Trump administration says it needs the lists to verify the integrity of voting procedures.
The lawsuits filed in several federal courts appear to be an outgrowth of President Donald Trump’s allegations that the 2020 election was stolen from him by voter fraud.
He said he would reform the electoral process but so far has failed to make any significant changes.
The lawsuits filed last week were against the District of Columbia, Illinois, Georgia and Wisconsin. They bring to 22 the number of lawsuits the Justice Department has filed trying to get detailed voter information from states.
Ten states have complied with the Justice Department requests for voter data. The others refuse.
The Justice Department lawsuits are demanding that the states turn over “all used and void ballots, stubs of all ballots, signature envelopes, and corresponding envelope digital files" from the 2020 general election.
The lawsuits accuse states that defy the requests of violating Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960.
Title III requires state and local election officials to retain federal election records, including registration and voting documents. It is supposed to ensure election integrity by allowing for federal review of voter qualifications and to prevent potential suppression of votes in a discriminatory way.
The Justice Department lawsuit says, "The attorney general or her representative may request a federal court to issue an order directing the custodian to produce the demanded records…”
Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a statement, "States have the statutory duty to preserve and protect their constituents from vote dilution. At this Department of Justice, we will not permit states to jeopardize the integrity and effectiveness of elections by refusing to abide by our federal elections laws. If states will not fulfill their duty to protect the integrity of the ballot, we will."
The data would reveal the full names, dates of birth, residential addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers of voters.
As the Justice Department began its requests for voter information, 10 state attorneys general wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi last month citing concerns that they were being deceived.
They were told the information was needed to verify election security but they said they were receiving reports that created “immense concern” for them that the Justice Department was sharing the voter data with the Homeland Security Department.
Their letter said federal officials “shared misleading and at times contradictory information” in recent meetings with the National Association of Secretaries of State.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.