Welcome to The Brief, our newsletter bringing you focused insights on race, law, policy, and technology from the Stanford Center for Racial Justice.
Data, Disparities, and Discrimination
California’s Racial Justice Act represents a historic shift in how courts address racial bias in criminal proceedings. Since the Supreme Court’s 1987 decision in McCleskey v. Kemp, defendants have faced nearly insurmountable barriers when challenging racial disparities in their cases. The Act reopens the courthouse doors by explicitly allowing defendants to present data-driven evidence of discriminatory patterns in charging and sentencing decisions.
The Racial Justice Act calls on lawyers—prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges—people typically without much background in statistical analysis, to craft, contest, and evaluate complex data-driven arguments. Fundamental questions remain unanswered, including how to determine which defendants are truly “similarly situated” for comparative analysis. To address these challenges, we’ve been researching the law’s implementation across California. Today we’re releasing an in-depth brief analyzing these issues along with a toolkit on statistical claims under the RJA we developed with our colleagues at the Justice Innovation Lab. These resources provide a framework for understanding emerging issues and offer practical guidance to practitioners navigating this new legal landscape.
We hope to contribute to the fundamental purpose behind the Racial Justice Act: identifying and removing racial bias in the criminal justice system—an objective that should transcend political lines and courtroom roles.
Read the Brief here.
Download the Toolkit.
Apr 17 What Might Be: Confronting Racism to Transform Our Institutions—Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School) in discussion with SLS’s Gulika Reddy from 12:45 – 2:00 pm at Stanford Law School.
Apr 22 Into the Wreckage: Law and the Courts in Struggles for Emancipation—An Imagining Justice Conversation with Amna Akbar (Ohio State Moritz College of Law) from 12:45 – 2:00 pm at Stanford Law School.
Apr 24 The Future of Equal Protection Law—University of Illinois Law Review symposium featuring Rick Banks and Victor Wu. More details
May 6 The Containment: Detroit, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for Racial Justice in the North—with Michelle Adams (University of Michigan Law School) in discussion with Rick Banks from 4:00 – 6:00 pm at Stanford Law School.
May 20 Negotiating the Academic Social Contract—with Rick Banks and Paul Brest, part of the Center’s Private Universities in the Public Interest project from 4:45 – 5:30 pm. More details
FACULTY DIRECTOR’S CORNER
Professor Ralph Richard Banks on the Trump administration and the rule of law
The Trump administration has challenged longstanding features of the system of governance in American society. How should we think about the challenges to longstanding aspects of our democratic project?
What most troubles me are Trump’s multi-pronged efforts to undermine the rule of law. It’s important to note that subverting the rule of law is distinct from violating the law. Presidents and other government officials frequently take actions or attempt to enact policies that violate the law. President Biden’s effort to forgive student loan debt, for example, was held to exceed his power as president and thus was illegal. So too has President Trump violated the law many times, as numerous courts have held. But merely violating the law is, by itself, insufficient to undermine the rule of law.
To undermine the rule of law is to interfere with or reject the processes on which we rely to resolve disputes. Deporting people or punishing them for speech is not only a violation of the law, it should be viewed as an attack on the rule of law. Free and unfettered debate is one of the processes on which we rely to make policy. Equally troubling is the President’s effort to intimidate law firms, so that they represent his preferred interests and decline to represent clients who might oppose Trump Administration policies. The ability for people to find legal representation to challenge the government is absolutely essential to the rule of law. When people cannot find the lawyers necessary for them to access the courts, the rule of law withers. And, of course, a foundation of the rule of law is the willingness to abide by the decisions of courts in the conflicts brought before them. The President’s inclination to ignore properly rendered judicial decisions is shocking and dismaying. These subversions of the rule of law undermine the social trust and cohesion on which we all rely, in our personal lives no less than in commercial affairs.
From the Stanford Center for Racial Justice
Rick Banks delivered the 39th annual Nathaniel L. Nathanson Memorial Lecture at the University of San Diego School of Law titled, “Education and Opportunity after Students for Fair Admissions.”
Subini Annamma and Hoang Pham launched the Roses Talk project, a Law and Policy Lab partnering with the San José Unified school district to address persistent disparities in education by centering at-promise student voices in education policy and practice. Students are reflecting on their experiences with the research project.
The Center’s Harry Bremond-Wilson Sonsini Foundation Student Fellowship (video) is underway with Brian Xu (JD ‘25) and Victor Wu (JD/Phd) serving as the inaugural Bremond fellows working at the Center and exploring pro bono practice at Wilson Sonsini.
ON THE RECORD
“Over the last few weeks of data analysis, I’ve listened to our interviews over and over again. Each time I listen, I’m struck by how thoughtful, passionate, and creative these students are. I’ve been so impressed by their ability to be both vulnerable and imaginative as they opened up about their stories and envisioned what a school system that truly met their needs would look like. It’s clear they know better than anyone else what they need to thrive.”
Andrea Akinola JD ’27, member of Stanford Center for Racial Justice Law and Policy Lab researching educational disparities in San José Unified School District
THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW
Group behind Students for Fair Admissions challenges Gates Foundation’s race-based scholarship program – and Gates reverses course
Edward Blum, who successfully challenged affirmative action in college admissions, has now set his sights on the Gates Foundation’s tax-exempt status. In a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Blum reveals that his organization, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, filed a formal IRS complaint targeting the Gates Scholarship, which restricts eligibility to specific racial groups. The complaint argues that this type of race-based exclusion violates “fundamental public policy” and could jeopardize the foundation’s 501(c)(3) status under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bob Jones University v. U.S. (1983). Shortly after the piece’s publication, the Gates Foundation announced plans to expand eligibility to all Pell Grant-eligible students regardless of race. Blum connects this challenge to the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against race-conscious college admissions, citing Chief Justice Roberts’ statement that “eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”
Naval Academy library purge sparks controversy over censorship and academic freedom
A recent directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s office has resulted in the removal of books addressing racism from the U.S. Naval Academy’s Nimitz Library while preserving works associated with white supremacist ideologies. The New York Times reports that Maya Angelou’s memoir on racial trauma “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” was purged, along with scholarly examinations of racism like Linda Gordon’s “The Second Coming of the KKK,” while Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and “The Camp of the Saints” – a novel embraced by white nationalists – remain available. Critics note the irony that these removals occurred at a library named for Admiral Chester Nimitz, who broke racial barriers by awarding the Navy Cross to Black sailor Doris Miller during WWII when the military was still segregated. Academic freedom advocates argue the purge reflects a troubling pattern in which books “by or about L.G.B.T.Q.+ people, or Black people, or anyone who is not a white, cisgender, heterosexual man” have been disproportionately targeted.
Water conflicts in California’s Shasta Valley reveal racial and agricultural divides
In California’s Shasta Valley, a complex hydrogeological landscape has become the backdrop for escalating tensions between established agricultural communities and Hmong American cannabis growers. As scientists work to map the region’s groundwater system, Siskiyou County has implemented controversial water restrictions specifically targeting roads leading to Hmong American settlements. While county officials cite concerns about illegal cannabis cultivation depleting water resources, advocates for the Hmong community argue these policies constitute racial discrimination, leading to protests and a federal lawsuit. Scientists studying the basin acknowledge significant data gaps, noting they lack concrete evidence connecting cannabis farming to well depletion. The conflict highlights how water scarcity can exacerbate racial tensions while underscoring the challenges of regulating groundwater use without comprehensive scientific data.
Here’s what else we’re following.
Military Academy Admissions: Air Force Academy stops considering race, gender, or ethnicity in admissions following President Trump’s executive order requiring armed forces to “operate free from any preference based on race or sex.” Naval Academy implemented similar changes in February. New York Times
DC’s BLM Plaza Removed: Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser removed the “Black Lives Matter” street mural near the White House after congressional Republicans threatened funding cuts for the city. The erasure symbolizes broader rollbacks of racial justice initiatives as BLM-related organizations face declining donations and influence. New York Times
Higher Ed Investigations: U.S. Dept. of Education launches civil rights probes into over 50 colleges for allegedly race-restrictive programs following a February directive banning race considerations in programs and scholarships—part of the administration’s broader crackdown on diversity initiatives. Higher Ed Dive
Source link
