The issue of race has been on the agenda of the U.S. legal system for quite a while (Williams, Gooden, & Davis, 2012). Even though the U.S. Constitution grants every single American citizen with irrefutable rights and freedoms, the current legal system allows for a massive number of racial profiling cases to occur. Some argue that the phenomenon in question can be attributed to the fact that the Black community is underrepresented in the state government. The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama addresses the subject matter in a very direct manner. The effects of the Supreme Court ruling on the current U.S. justice policy may not be as evident as they should be, yet the process of altering the current legislative environment has been launched. Although not all rights of Black people living in the United States are acknowledged regularly by legal authorities, the necessity for change has been made evident to most of the U.S. population in general and the U.S. government in particular, which is a breakthrough. On a more general level, the court ruling addresses the issue of intercultural relations among the American population in general and the bias typically associated with the representatives of the African American culture in particular ( Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama , 2014). Unfortunately, the decision ruled by the Court is not going to resolve the problem instantly. Despite the aforementioned steps taken to address the issue concerning racial profiling, the phenomenon still exists and continues to destroy the very fabric of social and political interactions among the citizens of the United States. Therefore, additional measures for reinforcing the law and enhancing the chances for African Americans to avoid injustice should be taken. Therefore, compliance with the court’s decision should be facilitated at all levels of execution. On the one hand, the reinforcement of bureaucratic procedures in the target environment contributes to more accurate compliance with the regulations established. As a result, the possibility of making a mistake or carrying out a misjudgment is reduced to nearly zero. On the other hand, the introduction of bureaucratic norms and principles into the designated area results in a significant drop in the efficiency of the policy in question ( Law enforcement , 2015). The specified phenomenon can be explained by the fact that bureaucratic procedures slow the implementation of the policies down, thus, eliminating the chances of addressing the problem at the earliest stages of its development. However, the enhancement of the bureaucratic principles may create the premises for advancing the changes in question due to the specifics of the designated field. Since most of the legal issues that are typically related to TSA concern security and the possibility of its breach by potential malefactors, galvanizing the key safety assurance procedures, such as regular checks of the passengers and their luggage, will require a significant enhancement of the existing bureaucratic processes and principles. The policy concerning the reinforcement of the TSA-related bureaucratic procedures, though leading to evidently tedious procedures, such as security checks before boarding a plane, is likely to affect the key stakeholders in a very posit