zlacker

I figured you would take that tack. In my defense, the term often does refer to whites specifically. In either case, however, I'm of the impression that a law may not disproportionately target one race or another (it's insufficient to show that a law doesn't explicitly target one race; it must also be shown that it doesn't cause disproportionate harm to one race), but again, IANAL and would be very interested in hearing from an expert (even suggestions on search criteria would be helpful).

>>throwa+(OP)
> I'm of the impression that a law may not disproportionately target one race or another (it's insufficient to show that a law doesn't explicitly target one race; it must also be shown that it doesn't cause disproportionate harm to one race),

You are incorrect. Laws may both explicitly (or otherwise intentionally) target race and may disproportionately impact race without explicit targeting.

Laws doing the former are subject to “strict scrutiny”: the discrimination must be the least invasive means of achieving a compelling government interest. The latter isn't prohibited at all, though it can be evidence of discriminatory intent. (You may be thinking of employment law, where disparate impact is generally prohibited discrimination, unless closely tailored to a specific legitimate non-discriminatory business need.)

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause for a discussion, especially the section under “tiered scrutiny” and “disparate impact”.

>>dragon+Qj
Interesting and disappointing. Thanks for the correction.