Note: The information below is not intended to be legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel.
You may have heard that the U.S. Department of Justice recently changed how it enforces Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Below is a summary of what happened, how it could affect civil rights protections, and what it means for organizations that receive federal funding.
What is Title VI?
When President Kennedy asked Congress in June 1963 to pass legislation that would eventually become the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he said the following about the section that would be known as Title VI:
“Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial discrimination. Direct discrimination [intentional discrimination] by Federal, State, or local governments is prohibited by the Constitution. But indirect discrimination [discriminatory effect], through the use of Federal funds, is just as invidious (i.e., unfair); and it should not be necessary to resort to the courts to prevent each individual violation."
The DOJ issued Title VI regulations in 1966 to address indirect discrimination, now called disparate impact or discriminatory effect. These regulations became the model for all other federal agencies. Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives federal funding. In practice, this means federally funded organizations may not deny services, exclude individuals from participation, or treat them differently because of their background.
On the 30th Anniversary of Title VI, the DOJ directed all federal agencies to "ensure that the disparate impact provisions in your regulations are fully utilized so that all persons may enjoy equally the benefits of Federally financed programs.”
What happened recently?
On December 10, 2025, the DOJ chose to rescind the portions of its Title VI regulations that addressed discrimination based on discriminatory effect. Because DOJ’s Title VI regulations are the model for the Title VI regulations of other federal agencies, it is likely that other agencies will soon be rescinding their discriminatory effect regulations.
Put simply: The DOJ will now only investigate Title VI complaints where someone has alleged discrimination that was intentional. It will not act if someone alleges that policies or practices harm certain groups of people unless it can be proven that the harm was intentional.
This is a major change from how Title VI has been enforced for decades, where people could challenge policies based on their harmful effects alone.
For example, imagine a hospital that only provides information in English. This makes it nearly impossible for people in the community with limited English proficiency (LEP) to understand their treatment options or navigate the healthcare system.
Before this change to Title VI regulations, this hospital policy could be challenged because of its discriminatory impact on non-English speakers based on their national origin, even if the hospital did not deliberately set out to exclude them.
Now, one would need to prove that the hospital created this policy specifically to harm or exclude those individuals, which is more difficult to do.
This change makes it much harder to fight discrimination people face in federally funded program and activities like hospitals, schools, housing, and public benefits. It removes a critical protection for vulnerable groups who are hurt by policies that may appear neutral on the surface but create unequal and harmful outcomes in practice.
What is discriminatory effect discrimination? How is it different from intentional discrimination?
Discriminatory effect discrimination occurs when a covered entity has a neutral policy or practice that disparately excludes minorities from benefits or services or that inflicts a disproportionate share of harm on them. (See DOJ Title VI Legal Manual, Section VII)
In contrast, intentional discrimination is when a covered entity treats people differently or otherwise knowingly causes them harm because of their race, color, or national origin, which includes failing to provide meaningful access to people with LEP. (See DOJ Title VI Legal Manual, Section VI.)
Was the DOJ forced to take this action by Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court?
The DOJ is choosing to rescind and stop enforcing these regulations. It was not directed or forced to take this action by Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2001 decision in Alexander v. Sandoval only restricted private individuals from filing lawsuits using the Title VI disparate impact regulations. It did not touch the DOJ's authority to enforce these regulations. The Court explicitly said it would "assume" these discriminatory effect regulations were valid, and the DOJ confirmed to federal agencies how that ruling left these regulations fully intact and enforceable.
For more than two decades after that ruling, the DOJ and other federal agencies continued using disparate impact regulations to enforce Title VI. For example, in a 2015 case, a federal court affirmed the DOJ's authority to enforce these regulations against a sheriff's office for discriminating against Spanish-speakers.
At no point did Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court direct the DOJ to abandon these protections or rescind these regulations. A 2024 federal court ruling did block enforcement of the Title VI discriminatory effect regulations in Louisiana specifically, but even that decision did not order the DOJ to rescind these regulations.
The DOJ had—and still has—the legal authority to continue enforcing disparate impact protections across the country. This means the current rollback is a policy choice, not a legal mandate.
It is a voluntary decision to stop using a tool that has been available and actively used for decades, but one that can be reversed by future administrations.
What happens now that these regulations are gone?
Rescinding these discriminatory effect regulations removes a critical enforcement mechanism that the DOJ and other federal agencies have relied on for almost 60 years. These regulations were often the only way a federal agency could address a Title VI complaint from someone who alleged discriminatory effect discrimination because they would not have the right to file a private lawsuit after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sandoval.
Now, if someone files a Title VI complaint with a federal agency that only alleges discriminatory effect discrimination, that complaint will likely be rejected and the person will not have a Title VI option to address the alleged discrimination.
What did not change?
The DOJ has only rescinded a few sections of its own regulations, but Title VI itself, other Title VI regulations, court decisions interpreting Title VI, and other federal and state nondiscrimination laws all remain fully in effect.
Title VI still prohibits race, color, and national origin discrimination, including the requirement to provide meaningful access to people with LEP. As DOJ explained in April, covered entities have a continuing obligation to comply with Title VI, all Title VI regulations, and any other applicable nondiscrimination requirements.
People still have ways to fight discrimination. Anyone can file a Title VI administrative complaint with the DOJ or other federal agency civil rights offices. People can also file lawsuits if they believe they have experienced intentional discrimination. Beyond federal options, individuals can file discrimination complaints with state and local civil rights offices, or with any entity that has its own complaint process.
The difference is that the DOJ—a powerful law enforcement agency with a mission statement “to protect civil rights”—has chosen to limit when it will step in to help.
What can be done?
While these regulations can be reversed by a future administration, the most effective way to guarantee these protections are available is to amend Title VI. You can contact your Congressperson and ask them to amend Title VI so that individuals and federal agencies can enforce Title VI when there is discriminatory effect discrimination.
About the Author:
Michael Mulé is an attorney who has enforced federal civil rights laws for two decades and specializes in the language access rights of people who speak or read languages other than English (LOE). 
He recently served as the Principal Deputy Director for the Office for Civil Rights in the Office of Justice Programs at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) where he enforced Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) and similar laws. Previously, Mr. Mulé was a senior attorney in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division (CRT) for thirteen years. At CRT, he led Title VI investigations, the state court language access team, and administered the federal government’s LEP website.
Over his fifteen years at DOJ, Mr. Mulé delivered 100 civil rights trainings. From 2005 to 2010, he worked at the Empire Justice Center in Rochester, New York to improve access for low-income clients who spoke or read LOE, were Deaf, or were hard of hearing. Mr. Mulé left DOJ on September 30, 2025, and now provides Title VI civil rights consulting and training.
