Page:Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.pdf/109

Rh From this, we can safely say that Title VI forbids a recipient of federal funds from intentionally treating one person worse than another similarly situated person on the ground of race, color, or national origin.

What does the statute’s second critical phrase—“on the ground of”—mean? Again, the answer is uncomplicated: It means “because of.” See, e.g., Webster’s New World Dictionary 640 (1960) (“because of”); Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, at 1002 (defining “grounds” as “a logical condition, physical cause, or metaphysical basis”). “Because of” is a familiar phrase in the law, one we often apply in cases arising under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and one that we usually understand to invoke “the ‘simple’ and ‘traditional’ standard of but-for causation.” Bostock, 590 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5) (quoting University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U. S. 338, 346, 360 (2013); some internal quotation marks omitted). The but-for-causation standard is a “sweeping” one too. Bostock, 590 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5). A defendant’s actions need not be the primary or proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury to qualify. Nor may a defendant avoid liability “just by citing some other factor that contributed to” the plaintiff’s loss. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 6). All that matters is that the plaintiff’s injury would not have happened but for the defendant’s conduct. Ibid.

Now put these pieces back together and a clear rule emerges. Title VI prohibits a recipient of federal funds from intentionally treating one person worse than another similarly situated person because of his race, color, or national origin. It does not matter if the recipient can point to “some other … factor” that contributed to its decision to disfavor that individual. Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 14–15). It does not matter if the recipient discriminates in order to advance some further benign “intention” or “motivation.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13); see also Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U. S. 187, 199 (1991) (“the absence of a