ACLU Challenges Trump Administration's Bid to Rescind Disparate Impact Regulations

In October 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) publicly opposed the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate "disparate impact" regulations—a key civil rights enforcement tool. These regulations allow challenges to policies that, while neutral on their face, disproportionately harm protected groups in areas like housing, employment, and education. The ACLU contends that removing these protections threatens decades of progress against systemic discrimination. They have actively opposed the administration's attempts to dismantle disparate impact standards across various federal departments, including the Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The ACLU's stance underscores the critical role of disparate impact liability in addressing systemic barriers faced by historically marginalized communities.

The concept of "disparate impact" originates from the 1971 Supreme Court case Griggs v. Duke Power Co., which established that employment practices may be deemed discriminatory if they disproportionately affect a protected group, even without intentional discrimination. This principle has been codified in various federal laws and regulations, serving as a cornerstone in civil rights enforcement.

On April 23, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14281, titled "Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy." This order aims to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability across federal agencies, directing them to deprioritize enforcement of statutes and regulations that include such liability. The order also instructs the Attorney General to repeal or amend all Title VI regulations that contemplate disparate-impact liability. The administration argues that disparate-impact liability undermines civil rights laws by mandating discrimination to achieve predetermined, race-oriented outcomes, contradicting the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and treatment. They assert that this approach hinders businesses from making merit-based hiring decisions and deprives job seekers of opportunities best suited to their skills.

The ACLU has been vocal in its opposition to these measures, stating that removing disparate impact protections threatens decades of progress against systemic discrimination. They emphasize that disparate impact liability is crucial for addressing systemic barriers faced by historically marginalized communities. The ACLU has actively opposed the administration's attempts to dismantle these standards across various federal departments, including the Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The elimination of disparate impact regulations has significant legal and societal implications. Civil rights advocates argue that this move could weaken protections against systemic discrimination, making it more challenging to address practices that, while neutral on their face, disproportionately harm protected groups. For instance, in October 2025, a former Amazon delivery driver filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) after it halted investigations into complaints of disparate impact discrimination following the executive order. The lawsuit contends that the EEOC is legally required to investigate such claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

Additionally, the Department of Labor has proposed over 60 rule changes aimed at deregulating workplace standards, including eliminating minimum wage and overtime protections for home health care workers and removing safety protocols in construction and mining. Critics warn that these measures endanger worker safety and disproportionately impact women and minority workers.

The current efforts to eliminate disparate impact regulations are unprecedented in their scope and could represent a significant shift in civil rights enforcement. Historically, disparate impact analysis has been a fundamental tool in identifying and addressing systemic discrimination. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized this legal theory, and it has been enshrined into employment law by Congress.

The Trump administration's efforts to eliminate disparate impact regulations have sparked significant debate and opposition from civil rights organizations like the ACLU. The outcome of these policy changes and the ensuing legal challenges will likely have profound implications for civil rights enforcement and the protection of marginalized communities in the United States.