Racial disparity in the U.S. criminal justice system stands as of the most salient representations of inequality in America today. In fact, some contend American criminal justice institutions have produced a new Jim Crow order. While unsettling evidence that African Americans and Latinos constitute an overwhelming majority of the nation’s criminally processed population is well-known, little attention has been given to political efforts seeking to redress such racial inequities. This paper responds to this void by critically assessing the politics and consequences of “racial disparity reform” at the national level since the 1970s. It contends reform on behalf of diminishing racial distinctions in criminal processing has derived from distinct paradigm of civil rights advocacy. While courts, as the traditional venue for challenging racial inequalities, have consistently retreated from claims of racial bias in criminal justice administration, proponents of racial justice have instead turned to Congress and the executive branch to amend swelling disparities. Many fear this institutional shift has resulted an emergence of more moderate, shallow, and toothless reforms that allow elected officials to skirt controversial issues of race. This argument is empirically tested using original court processing data surrounding the introduction of a federal mandate to reduce minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system. Initial analyses underscore non-judicial reforms can be powerful in curtailing racial disparities. In light of the Trayvon Martin tragedy and the Obama administration’s recent commitments to addressing disproportionate minority contact with the criminal justice apparatus, lessons are subsequently drawn commenting on the promise of contemporary initiatives targeting racial inequality in the realm of criminal justice and beyond.