(Mises Institute)—One of the most pernicious aspects of civil rights law is that it has abolished the presumption of innocence. Motive and intention are irrelevant in establishing liability for discrimination.
Under the concept of disparate impact established in the notorious case of Griggs v. Duke Power (1971), any employment policy or practice that operates to exclude black people “is prohibited, notwithstanding the employer’s lack of discriminatory intent.” As held in Griggs: “Congress directed the thrust of the Act to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation. More than that, Congress has placed on the employer the burden of showing that any given requirement must have a manifest relationship to the employment in question.”
Any practices having disparate impact, such as tests disproportionately failed by black people, are prohibited unless they can be justified as necessary to job performance. Proving such justification is onerous and costly. The rationale given in Griggs is that Congress, not the employer, gets to decide what tests are necessary for a job based on what is described as a commonsense approach: “Diplomas and tests are useful servants, but Congress has mandated the common sense proposition that they are not to become masters of reality.” Yet this notion of “common sense” is not entrusted to the employer but mandated by Congress through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Further, as stated in Griggs, the burden of proof is reversed from accuser to accused. Once a prima facie case is made out—for example, by statistics that show a gap in group outcomes or results—the burden is on the employer to show that there was no discrimination.
Although tests and other measures of merit are not absolutely forbidden, they are costly to justify, not least because they are subject to scrutiny by the EEOC. This goes against the basic concept of contractual freedom and freedom of association: it is no freedom if there is a legal duty to give reasons for a decision that must meet with the approval of the EEOC. The duty to give reasons and justifications turns the employer’s common-law liberty into a mere license held at the will of the state. This duty to give reasons and justifications for contractual decisions or decisions about whom to associate with also violates the principle of self-ownership. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe remarks in his “Introduction” to The Ethics of Liberty,
In The Ethics of Liberty Rothbard gives the following answer to the question of what I am justified doing here and now: every person owns his own physical body as well as all nature-given goods which he puts to use with the help of his body before anyone else does; this ownership implies his right to employ these resources as onesees fit so long as one does not thereby uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another’s property or delimit another’s control over it without his consent.
Perverse Incentives
The civil rights framework creates perverse incentives for employers to hire by quota in order to avoid incurring liability for discrimination. The hazard is that unless attention is paid to factors such as race and sex, statistical analysis might thereafter reveal gaps that call for an explanation. In this way, civil rights law—which purports to eliminate discrimination—in fact encourages discriminatory practices because it shifts the focus away from merit-based decisions toward constructing employment statistics that reflect all groups proportionately. The creation of this perverse incentive may be illustrated with the example of age discrimination:
Have you discriminated on grounds of age? Not to your mind. You are thinking only of job skills and profitability. But from the perspective of a government planner with an agenda, it is different. Looking at the facts, it seems like a clear case of age discrimination.
With this new court decision, the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise. But how can something like the absence of a motivation be demonstrated? Now, it is possible or even likely that you might be able to show that factors other than age constitute the main reason for the disparity. But it is a toss-up as to whether the court or the EEOC will agree with you.
The only way to be off the hook completely is to pad your workforce with people hired because they are older.
The effect of civil rights law is therefore to replace the presumption of innocence with a presumption of strict liability to pay compensation for gaps in outcomes. This is indeed totalitarian. It has far-reaching effects beyond the facts of specific cases, creating a system in which innocence and guilt are determined by state officials without regard to basic principles of fair adjudication.
This doctrine of strict liability to pay compensation for any gaps in racial group outcomes is also being extended to justify liability to pay global reparations. There is a “wealth gap” between rich and poor countries, so the first world must transfer wealth to the third world through reparations regardless of whether taxpayers in rich countries are responsible for the economic conditions pertaining in poorer countries:
The “constructive project” [demanding global reparations] to a large extent rests on claims that the ancestors of whites living today mistreated the ancestors of blacks living today. But why are people morally responsible for what their relations have done in the past? Táíwò slices though the problem. It doesn’t matter, he says, whether they are responsible: they are still liable for the damages to the descendants of the mistreated.
An innocent person is under no moral obligation to submit to such strict liability obligations. Holding people liable to pay for wrongs of which they are not guilty goes against the presumption of innocence and the maxim that the burden is always on the accuser to prove his case. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat: the burden of proof lies on him who asserts, not him who denies. In violating the presumption of innocence, civil rights law is incompatible with the basic principles of justice.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
Bypass Big Tech Censors
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.