The Justice Department is carrying out President Trump’s anti-DEI agenda by ending federal civil rights lawsuits accusing police and fire departments of discrimination based on tests given to applicants for jobs or promotions. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Wednesday that such suits endanger public safety by encouraging local governments to make hiring decisions based on diversity concerns rather than on qualifications, Politico reports. “American communities deserve firefighters and police officers to be chosen for their skill and dedication to public safety — not to meet DEI quotas,” Bondi said. Under the Biden administration, the Justice Department launched a series of lawsuits to force changes to written examinations and physical fitness tests that often resulted in Black and female applicants losing out on fire and police jobs due to lower scores. DOJ alleged that the tests did “not meaningfully distinguish between applicants who can and cannot perform the job” duties of firefighters or police.
“Discriminatory barriers that deny qualified Black and female applicants the opportunity to be police officers violate civil rights and undermine public safety efforts,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke said last year. Last fall, lawyers in the Civil Rights Division reached settlements with the Maryland State Police and the Durham Fire Department over their tests. However, the consent decrees to resolve those cases had not yet been approved by judges. The Justice Department dropped the Durham case on Tuesday and asked for an extension of at least 90 days in the Maryland litigation. The department filed a lawsuit last October against South Bend, Ind., alleging that the city’s police department discriminated against Black applicants through a written exam and against female applications via a physical fitness test. That case remained pending as of Wednesday. Prompting the about-face by the incoming Trump administration is a long-running battle over the use of “disparate impact” to prove discrimination. The Biden administration favored such an approach, arguing that intentional discrimination can be hard to prove and that statistical analyses could show illegal discrimination. The Trump administration and many legal conservatives contend that disparate results for particular racial groups or along gender lines don’t necessarily show discrimination. Conservatives also argue that allowing litigation over any statistical differences puts courts in the position of deciding how necessary particular skills are to a job when local officials should be making those decisions.