Well, depends on the day. See the Trump v. Hawaii (the Muslim ban case). In this case Trump did say he wanted to ban muslims, but it didn't even matter.

I mean why would it? The law explicitly stated he's allowed to ban immigration and travel of non USA persons based on whatever he feels like. Non USA persons don't get the same rights especially around entering the USA.

That’s funny because Trump v. Hawaii proves the opposite. Obama was the one who identified those specific countries. They just happened to all be Muslim. Trump said he wanted to ban Muslims, but did so by using a list of countries that Obama had generated based on presumably non-racist reasons.

gerrymandered district maps can get struck down on the basis of intention of racial discrimination. Correlation and intent are two very different concepts, and it is very dangerous to assume that everything that correlates do so by intent.

> it is very dangerous to assume that everything that correlates do so by intent.

Yes but it is much more dangerous to assume that correlation can't imply intent. Because sometimes it does.

Indeed. Once a situation is suspected to be done by criminal intent, investigators can interview personal, go through search histories, looking for text conversations and so on. Once collected a judge can look at it and determine if there is or isn't intent.

It is a costly, time consuming and cumbersome process, but the legal system is quite used to it since almost every single criminal case involve some aspects of establishing intent.

>> gerrymandered district maps can get struck down on the basis of racial discrimination

Under current interpretation of civil rights laws, district maps can get struck down on the basis of racial discrimination if they are not sufficiently gerrymandered.

I assume you’re referring to section 2 of the voting rights act? If so, I find that a pretty disingenuous framing. Can you point to an example of a seemingly fair map being struck down in favor of racial gerrymandering?