Can you elaborate on this? As stated, it sounds not just inaccurate, but impossible: it reads like youre saying that any policy that doesn't result in a uniform (or proportional) racial ratio is illegal, which obviously isn't the case.

I think you're talking about disparate impact (as a legal concept), but this is 1) IIRC likotes to certain domains, like housing or employment and 2) avoidable if the racially-skewed policy is demonstrably related to the job (in the employment case).

As a trivial example, requiring a college degree for a job dramatically shifts the racial distribution of the candidate pool, and obviously isn't illegal.

If the shoplifting system is found to be illegal, AIUI, it would probably be because the case is made that it's _directly_ racially biased (disparate treatment).