The court of law has been in denial on the racial injustices, and how disproportional African Americans are targeted. For example, in the book it states,” The first study found that African Americans were stopped six times more frequently than whites, and that stops of African Americans were less likely to result in arrests than stops of whites…”(Alexander 118). A fair system would investigate this skewed stoppage of African Americans and reform police procedure, but this is not the case. Denial that there is prejudice in in the police has been a controversy that has been the basis for activism lately. The police deny critics that they are targeting African Americans disproportionally, even if there is evidence that proves otherwise. The Irony of the sentiment is that racial profiling is illegal, yet through loopholes is allowed as is stated humorously, “we do not racial-profile; we just stop people based on race” (Alexander 131). The police know that racial profiling is illegal, but they have a record of specifically being suspicious of individuals because of their race. It would be easy to say this is just a police problem, that they are denying targeting African Americans while acting on it, and the justice system will sort out when it was illegal and when it was not. The bigger issue is that the court system approves of the police’s conduct. In the same page it states,” Because the Supreme Court has authorized the police to use race as a factor when making decisions regarding whom to stop and search…”(Alexander 118). The higher courts rather than acting partial allow police to continue the conduct and have the excuse that the courts approve of their conduct so it is not racial. There is denial that the new Jim Crow exists because there is support for it to continue, by the justice