For quite some time, the federal government held sway over matters concerning discrimination.
The primary method used was the “disparate-impact” theory. This theory argued that if a hiring process doesn’t align with someone’s envisioned demographic breakdown, then that process must be inherently discriminative and should be dismantled. Recently, the Department of Justice has declared that this understanding is unconstitutional.
Originally, this approach was promoted as a means to uncover unintentional discrimination, but it ended up fostering intentional discrimination— not by accident, but as a matter of policy.
Past liberal administrations attempted to go against the Constitution, while conservative ones focused on reshaping the judiciary. Yet, persistent bureaucrats continued to leverage this theory, while many conservatives stuck to giving speeches on equal opportunity rather than taking decisive action.
The Constitution, in its essence, is intended to be colorblind and prohibits any decisions made with race as a consideration. What’s been glaringly missing has been strong leadership. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has stepped up— bringing President Trump’s vision to life and emphasizing that every American deserves to be considered as an individual, rather than just a data point.
On June 9, the Justice Department published a significant opinion, crafted by Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Joshua Craddock. They concluded that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s disparate-impact framework is unconstitutional as it coerces employers into making race-based decisions.
For years, various officials, activists, and entrenched bureaucrats misused this concept, using statistical discrepancies to justify discrimination against individuals whose only fault was succeeding based on merit. Fairness was never the goal.
The focus was always on achieving equal results— manipulating outcomes under the guise of equity and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). It turned into a tool that trampled on the constitutional and civil rights of diligent Americans.
America is more than that. Achievements aren’t defined by race or inherent traits; they are earned through perseverance, skill, and hard work. Civil rights legislation was established to prevent intentional discrimination—not to impose demographic quotas.
Blanche put it clearly: “In attempting to promote equality, the EEOC’s disparate-impact interpretation of Title VII inadvertently perpetuates the very discrimination it’s designed to combat. This ruling will empower businesses to hire based on performance, reinstating equal opportunities in American workplaces.”
The opinion referenced the Supreme Court case Ricci v. DeStefano. In that instance, New Haven abandoned firefighter promotional exams because minority candidates didn’t meet certain political criteria. The city rejected professionally developed exams and collaborated with minority groups to label critics as bigots—squelching dissent.
That tactic failed. Despite facing legal warfare, threats, and even political violence against one of the New Haven firefighters, we stood united— not just for the firefighters, but for a principle that needed upholding.
Think about the reasoning here. Dismissing those results is akin to evaluating graduation rates for minority and non-minority students and deciding that, in the name of “fairness,” nobody should graduate. It’s absurd— but that was the city’s chosen route, disregarding public safety for feelings.
Whenever the outcomes didn’t satisfy activists, rather than seeking better training or improving schools, the response was to lower standards and manipulate selections, punishing those who played by the rules.
Real change comes from expanding educational opportunities and holding superintendents and school boards accountable— not by punishing those who achieved success.
The Supreme Court determined that the city had violated Title VII through intentional discrimination, yet it refrained from addressing the Fourteenth Amendment claim. Justice Antonin Scalia remarked on the pending conflict between disparate impact and equal protection, suggesting that it was essential to consider how to reconcile these two aspects.
This ruling is just a single step. We’ve seen some federal courts attempt to impose legislation from the bench, ignoring the law. However, for the first time in years, Washington is acknowledging a clear truth: enforcement based on outcomes leads directly to race-based decision-making.
The next step is to formalize President Trump’s agenda by adjusting the filibuster and confirming Todd Blanche. As Mike Davis, President of the Article III Project, noted: “Blanche has dedicated the past 15 months to introducing necessary reforms and accountability at the Justice Department. But we need to achieve more to rebuild the public’s trust in our justice system. Blanche is uniquely positioned to continue this work. He’s the right person for this crucial role.”
President Trump recognizes that the Constitution must prevail and that individuals should be evaluated based on their own merits. Equal opportunity has never equated to equal results. The American promise is about providing every individual a fair chance to compete—not ensuring that each group crosses the finish line simultaneously. When the government attempts to manipulate the completion of the race, discrimination against some becomes unavoidable— and the Constitution forbids that, regardless of how popular the cause may be.
Frank Ricci was the lead plaintiff in the historic Supreme Court case Ricci v DeStefano. He retired as a Battalion Chief in New Haven, Connecticut, has testified before Congress, and is the author of the book Command Presence.
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official stance of any organization.
