Justice Thomas: Racial disparities don't always hurt black people. Look at the NBA!

The Supreme Court on Thursday saved a key component of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which protects against housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. But not every justice was happy with the decision.

Take, for example, Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent, in which he argued that racial disparities alone are not a good way to measure discrimination. He pointed out the National Basketball Association (NBA) is mostly black yet it's not considered racist, suggesting that not all racial disparities are considered discriminatory and unlawful:

Racial imbalances do not always disfavor minorities.… And in our own country, for roughly a quarter-century now, over 70 percent of National Basketball Association players have been black.

Cherry-picking one sports league misses the broader point of laws like the Fair Housing Act: they're supposed to protect from systemic issues — and there's little question that African Americans face huge disparities on a systemic level. Black Americans have lower wages even after attaining higher education, they're less likely to get calls back for job applications, they're mired by people's subconscious racial biases, they're more likely to be shot and killed by police, and, yes, they still face residential segregation. When looking at the aggregate of these socioeconomic problems, it's not hard to see why something like the Fair Housing Act might be needed to protect black people from widespread discrimination.

Right now, the Fair Housing Act protects minority Americans from such discrimination in housing by requiring them to merely prove a policy creates racial disparities — regardless of whether the intent was to discriminate. But Thomas's interpretation would have forced plaintiffs in housing discrimination complaints to prove that policies and officials intended to discriminate. Since proving intent is much more difficult than showing a negative effect, Thomas's interpretation could have made the Fair Housing Act unworkable — and prevented the law from protecting many people from housing discrimination.

(h/t: Suzy Khimm.)

Correction: The headline and text of this article originally went too far in their interpretation of Justice Clarence Thomas's argument against the Fair Housing Act.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via