Mullin v. Doe · ¶135

Our decision in Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous ing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252 (1977), supplies the standard for assessing that claim. The Haiti plaintiffs must show (here, must show as a likelihood) that a racially “discriminatory purpose” was “a motivating factor” in the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation.Id., at 265–266. Critically, “a motivating factor” does not mean the sole factor, or even “the dominant or primary one.” Id., at 265. One factor among many is enough when the factor is racial to presumptively establish an equal protection violation. See ibid. And in determining whether such a factor exists, a court must undertake a “sensitive inquiry” into whatever “circumstantial and direct evidence of intent” is available. Id., at 266. It should consider “[t]he historical background of the decision”; the “sequence of events leading up” to it; and, most relevant…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.