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
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 is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional. 
Civil and Human Rights
March 17, 2025

Equality and Protection: The Forgotten Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment

102 Denv. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)
Civil and Human Rights
North Dakota Supreme Court

Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley

In Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley, the North Dakota Supreme Court is considering whether North Dakota’s abortion ban violates the state constitution.