This article focuses on the legal remedy for racial profiling under the Fourteenth Amendment in the U.S. There have been numerous examples of disparate treatment of racial minorities in the very first stage of the criminal process. However, the Whren Court foreclosed relief against racial profiling under the Fourth Amendment by ignoring the effects of racial motivation and by declaring that the subject of racial motivation is irrelevant to Fourth Amendment analysis. Even though the Whren Court suggested that the Equal Protection Clause is a more appropriate avenue to challenge racial profiling, courts have rarely upheld claims against racial profiling supported by claimants’ statistical evidence. Therefore, this Article proposes that the Court sustain the use of statistical evidence in proving discriminatory intent in racial profiling claims by analogizing the rationale in Soto where the New Jersey Superior Court supported statistical evidence in proving discriminatory intent of governmental entities. This Article additionally analyzes Batson and suggests that the Court should establish a three-part inquiry to prove discriminatory intent in racial profiling claims, as the Batson Court did in cases where a prosecutor was racially motivated to preempt jurors from a jury panel