California's landmark 2020 Racial Justice Act, designed to root out racial bias in the criminal justice system, is under assault from state courts that have narrowed its protections, prompting a legislative push to restore the law's original intent.
The law, which followed similar measures in Kentucky and North Carolina, was a direct response to a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that made it nearly impossible for defendants to prove racial discrimination in sentencing by requiring proof of discriminatory purpose in their specific case. As the Stanford Center for Racial Justice notes, defendants rarely meet that high bar.
California's law changed the game by allowing defendants to use statistical evidence of racial disparities in charging, conviction, or sentencing to establish bias. It prohibits convictions or sentences based on race, ethnicity, or national origin, and bars racially discriminatory language, harsher charges for defendants of color, and longer sentences compared to similarly situated individuals of other races. When violations are found, courts must vacate convictions or sentences, and in capital cases, prosecutors cannot seek the death penalty if race played any role.
The law also swept away technical barriers like the "harmless error" rule, which previously allowed courts to overlook errors that did not affect the trial's outcome. Under the Racial Justice Act, no racial error is considered harmless—a clear signal of the law's ambition. The Public Policy Institute of California has called it "goes beyond any other state or federal attempt to ensure equal treatment under the law for all races."
However, in August, the California Supreme Court significantly weakened the law in People v. Hazlett, ruling that the Racial Justice Act does not cover the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges to strike jurors. Justice Kelli Evans dissented, calling the majority's reasoning "cramped," and argued that striking a juror based on discriminatory belief is necessarily bias toward the defendant because of race.
The fallout was immediate. In September, the California Court of Appeals, citing Hazlett, dismissed a racial discrimination claim in jury selection in the case of Monte Haney. Judge Jon Streeter, in a concurring opinion, noted that the law's objective is to eradicate all forms of racial bias in criminal proceedings, and questioned whether the courts are living up to the legislature's stated intent.
The legislature has already shown its willingness to intervene. In 2022, it amended the act to make it retroactive, providing relief to those convicted before the law's passage. And in 2025, reacting to court decisions that "eviscerated" the law, lawmakers declared that racial bias in one part of a prosecution infects the whole, comparing it to metastatic cancer that cannot be cured by removing a single cell.
California law already prohibits peremptory challenges based on race in civil rights and civil commitment cases. Now, the legislature has another chance to extend that protection to criminal cases, ensuring the Racial Justice Act's promise is fulfilled. If it does, California can once again serve as a national model for eradicating racial bias in the justice system.
