Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: CAC Reacts to Court’s Discrimination Ruling

“Racial discrimination can infect the contract formation process, and that isn’t altered simply because those contract negotiations ultimately would have failed based on other grounds; the other grounds do not serve as a disinfectant.” — CAC President Elizabeth Wydra

WASHINGTON – On news this morning of the Supreme Court’s ruling in  Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media and Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc., Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra said: 

We are disappointed by today’s ruling by the Supreme Court. We are concerned that requiring a showing of but-for causation for these sorts of discrimination claims ignores not only the text and history of the statute, but also the reality of how racial discrimination functions in workplaces across this nation. As we explained in a brief filed on behalf of Members of Congress, the plain text of Section 1981 does not require a showing of but-for causation, unlike other statutes which contain causal phrases like “because of” and “results from.” Racial discrimination can infect the contract formation process, and that isn’t altered simply because those contract negotiations ultimately would have failed based on other grounds; the other grounds do not serve as a disinfectant.  

#

Resources:

CAC case page in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American–Owned Media and Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc.https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/comcast-corp-v-national-association-of-african-american-owned-media-and-entertainment-studios-networks-inc/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2025

CAC Release: Purporting to Effectuate “Pure Textualism,” Supreme Court Guts ADA’s Protections for Retirees, Neglecting Critical Statutory Context and History

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Stanley v. City of...
Civil and Human Rights
June 18, 2025

CAC Release: Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority Allows Tennessee to Flout Constitution’s Equal Protection Guarantee

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in United States v. Skrmetti,...
Civil and Human Rights
July 14, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.