Disparate impact is the dubious approach to civil rights enforcement that claims that an entirely neutral policy that does not discriminate on its face, is not intended to discriminate, and does not actually treat individuals differently based on their race still constitutes illegal racial discrimination if it has a "disproportionate" statistical effect among different racial and ethnic groups. This theory has been used, most notably by the Obama Administration, to justify racial quotas in school discipline, including suspensions and expulsions--ignoring the many other factors that may be responsible. Adopting racial quotas in school discipline is not only illegal and unjustified, it is counterproductive. Because such a policy changes the discipline applied to students for the same misbehavior depending on their race, it hurts misbehaving students since such disparate treatment or a lack of corrective action may encourage even more disruptive and dangerous behavior. Moreover, such policies hurt well-behaved students and their teachers because forcing schools to keep misbehaving students in the classroom will invariably disrupt the learning environment. Such a racially disparate discipline policy endangers students and teachers--and encourages even more disruptive misbehavior. The policy resulted in prohibited racial quotas and led to students being treated differently based on their race. The Trump Administration acted wisely when it withdrew this unlawful and unfair Obama Administration policy. Policy recommendations at both the state and federal levels conclude the report. [This memorandum was prepared by The Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal & Judicial Studies.]