A facially neutral law presents a different proof problem. Disproportionate racial impact is relevant evidence, but a constitutional equal-protection claim ordinarily also requires discriminatory purpose. Purpose means government selected or maintained the challenged action because of its racial consequences, not merely with awareness that unequal effects might follow. Courts may examine historical background, departures from normal procedure, the sequence of events, official statements, and whether the pattern is otherwise difficult to explain.

Unequal administration creates another route. A licensing rule may be neutral on paper while officials deliberately approve comparable applications from one racial group and reject those from another. The discriminatory enforcement supplies purposeful government action even though the text contains no express classification. By contrast, a neutral transit rule that produces a statistical disparity without discriminatory purpose does not establish a constitutional violation on effect alone. A statute may separately prohibit specified disparate impacts, so constitutional intent and statutory proof must not be merged.

Use three labels precisely. Facial classification means the law expressly uses race. Discriminatory purpose concerns why a neutral-looking action was adopted or administered. Disparate impact describes unequal effects and may be evidence without completing the constitutional claim. On a CLEP item, identify the state actor and comparison group first, then decide which of the three the facts establish. Strict scrutiny follows an express racial classification or proven purposeful racial treatment; a disparity alone ordinarily does not select that standard.

Video lesson: Equal Protection: Crash Course Government and Politics #29