Antiracist Medicine in Colorblind Courts

This Article considers how health professionals’ efforts to combat racial health inequities must navigate legal constraints on their ability to consider race. In light of the Roberts Court’s recent invalidation of two university admissions programs, intensifying a “colorblind” judicial shift, the collision between antiracist medicine and colorblind law is a pressing concern. It seeks to anticipate the implications of this collision and explore how health professionals and systems can design programs that survive judicial examination.In Part I, the Article examines the frameworks that will apply if antiracist medicine faces legal challenges. These include the Equal Protection Clause, federal statutes like Title VI and Section 1981, and state law provisions. Part II systematically outlines three reasons why medicine might consider race: the enhancement of individual and population health through beneficent consideration, the mitigation of racial health disparities via egalitarian consideration, and the redress of historical injustices through reparative consideration. Additionally, it identifies five central contexts in which race has been considered: professional training, the professional-patient encounter, allocation of scarce resources, public health, and clinical research.Part III delves into the critical question of how medicine should respond to courts’ colorblind turn. Because policies classifying patients or professionals by race will be subjected to strict scrutiny, their viability becomes a challenge. In contrast, policies aimed at antiracist goals while avoiding race-based classification will normally pass muster. It also discusses recent legislative, regulatory, and litigious developments that question the legitimacy of antiracist medical objectives. Understanding the evolving legal landscape is crucial for medicine to effectively address racial health inequities, and this Article seeks to provide precisely that understanding