Abstract
The Fifth Amendment equal protection doctrine has never been effective at curtailing racialized harm in immigration law. While not expressly drafted to address racially differential impact, the administrative law doctrine known as arbitrary and capricious review has the potential to enable courts to set aside discretionary immigration enforcement decisions as arbitrary and capricious based on racially differential impact. But in this Essay I illustrate why even if the Supreme Court interpreted arbitrary and capricious review to prohibit not just differential impact but also racially differential impact, doing so would not deter immigration racial subordination. The reasons why such a change would be ineffective is because of the inherent normative structural limitations of both doctrines and the difference between colorblind disparate or differential impact and antiracial subordination.
