Crude Statistics and Discrimination Claims

Here is yet another case of a misleading claim via crude statistics. (See also this post.) This one, unfortunately was actually bought by a federal district judge, with grave implications.

Hans Bader has this post at Liberty Unyielding on a recent decision out of Richmond, Virginia.

A judge recently found that the City of Richmond racially profiles black motorists, dismissing the indictment of a black convicted felon accused of illegally possessing a gun. The judge did not find that defendant Keith Moore had been treated differently than a similarly situated-white motorist. Instead, he ruled that Richmond police stops are racially discriminatory, based on statistics showing blacks are stopped and arrested at much higher rates than whites ….

Although the judge cited statistical disparities, he did not cite any specific police practices that led to blacks being stopped at higher rates, as he should have done if police were actually at fault. In Smith v. City of Jackson (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that even unintentional discrimination (disparate-impact) cannot be proved through statistics unless “specific” practices are identified that caused the “statistical disparities.” The disparities themselves are not enough.

The fact that blacks are stopped by police at a higher rate than whites does not itself prove discrimination. In United States v. Armstrong (1996), the Supreme Court emphasized that there is no legal “presumption that people of all races commit all types of crimes” at the same rate, since such a presumption is “contradicted by” real world data showing big differences in crime rates. Thus, racial disparities in arrest rates or police-stop rates don’t violate the Constitution’s ban on racial discrimination, unless they are caused by racism.

Will this decision stand? It shouldn’t, but there are some big “ifs.” First, the U.S. Attorney has to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Will political pressure within the Administration block an appeal?

Second, the Fourth Circuit will need to decide it correctly. The Fourth used to be one of the best circuits, but in recent years it has gone downhill via Obama and Biden appointments. Getting a good panel there is now a crapshoot, and not a favorable one.

If the Fourth gets it wrong, the Solicitor General makes the call on whether to seek Supreme Court review. Another if, more politics. If the SG does file the petition for certiorari, four Justices of the Supreme Court would have to grant it. Unlike us mere mortals, the US SG gets a large portion of petitions granted, but it’s not a certainty.

If the Supreme Court takes the case, it would need to decide it correctly. That is actually the easiest prediction in the whole chain. It is hard to imagine the current Court affirming this codswallop.