( CNN ) -- The United States has a dignity problem . The concept of dignity is recognized by law in countries all over the world . It is a cornerstone of both international humanitarian law , which governs the treatment of prisoners of war , and international human rights law . But it has little power in American jurisprudence . A robust recognition and protection of dignity is precisely what we need , particularly if we are to understand how racism has broken its tether and become enshrined again in state laws and policies across the United States . Take racial profiling -- the single most explicit manifestation of racial prejudice in the United States today . Nearly 700,000 individuals a year are subject to the brutal indignity of the New York Police Department 's stop-and-frisk policy . The vast majority are young African-American and Latino men . In a New York Times op-ed in December , 23-year-old Nicholas Peart heart-rendingly described his initiation into the world of stop-and-frisk beginning at age 14 . This rite of passage for innocent young black men requires submitting without complaint or question to being harassed and targeted by the police . Even showing an `` attitude '' can escalate encounters into an arrest or even death . Stop-and-frisk policing is only one aspect of the national indignity of racial profiling . Police surveillance of law-abiding Muslims ( here again the New York police play a central role ) and the pulling over of motorists for `` driving while black '' are two others . Rather than recognize how these practices strike at our bedrock constitutional rights to due process , equal protection and freedom from unreasonable searches , the Supreme Court recently doubled down on racial profiling . It decided that the discretion of police may be complemented by the discretion of jail officials to strip-search the 14 million Americans who are arrested each year . In this way , the conservative majority on the court is turning back the clock on the greatest successes of the civil rights movement -- the understanding that the Civil War amendments to the Constitution were designed to uphold the inherent dignity of blacks as human beings and citizens . Even more alarming and insidious is the court 's ability to provide legal support for racial profiling without ever mentioning race . In key , high-profile cases in which racial profiling was either explicitly or implicitly at the core of the complaint , the conservative majority simply ignores the racial implications of sweeping decisions that leave racial minorities subject to arbitrary law enforcement practices . Opinion : A jury 's race can deny justice . In 2010 in Ashcroft v. Iqbal , a case brought by a Pakistani man who argued that racial and religious profiling after 9/11 resulted in his arrest and mistreatment in jail in New York , the court raised the standard for complainants in civil cases . It insisted that plaintiffs must show before discovery that their claim appears plausible to a trial judge . The court expressed confidence in the `` common sense and experience '' of trial judges to know a plausible discrimination claim when they hear one . The court also found it implausible that federal law enforcement officials might have engaged in racial profiling after 9/11 . In 2011 in Connick v. Thompson , the court held that a black man railroaded by the district attorney 's office in New Orleans and convicted of a murder he did not commit could not recover a judgment in a civil rights action he brought and won after serving 14 years on death row . Just a month ago in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders , the court held that jail officials were legally entitled to strip-search an African-American businessman , Albert Florence , twice after he was wrongly arrested and held for a week in two New Jersey jails . In each case , the conservative majority never once addressed the racial context or racial implications of their decisions . The court appears poised to do the same next month in the case involving Arizona immigration law , which gives local police the right to demand proof of citizenship from people they suspect are here illegally . This is at bottom a license for nationwide racial profiling under the guise of immigration enforcement and state 's rights . Perhaps this is why Chief Justice John Roberts insisted on limiting the parameters of the case by stating at the outset of the solicitor general 's argument , `` I 'd like to clear up what ( this case is ) not about . No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling . '' The meek acquiescence of the solicitor general to this judicial bullying was a failure of colossal proportions . The conservative majority may have the power to legalize racial profiling in this country , but they should not be permitted to pretend that this is not precisely what they are doing . This is precisely why we need a more robust and coherent understanding of how the concept of dignity underlies key provisions of our Constitution . Although the Constitution does not include an explicit right to dignity , as one scholar has recently explained , the Supreme Court has long invoked dignity interests in its decisions . Civil rights lawyers , scholars and activists need to remind the court and our nation about the centrality of dignity to our core constitutional protections . Without this understanding , this court will continue unchecked until racial minorities in this country find themselves once again in a posture of abject indignity before the irrational policies of the state . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Sherrilyn A. Ifill .
Sherrilyn Ifill : Recognition of dignity crucial to grasping how racism cropping up in laws . Ifill : Examples of profiling include stop-and-frisk policy , post-9/11 Muslim surveillance . She says Supreme Court has left racial consideration out of rulings when it 's clearly relevant . Comment: Several rulings appear to make racial profiling part of law , and courts should admit it .