Federal judge dismisses lawsuit challenging minority representation on Alabama board
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit last week that challenged a state law and administrative regulation requiring the Alabama Real Estate Appraisers Board to have at least two minority members.
U.S. District Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. dismissed the case on Friday after both parties agreed to end the proceedings after the plaintiff in the case, American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER), objected to being subjected to discovery.
With both parties agreeing to end the litigation, Huffaker then agreed to the stipulations from both parties and ended the case with prejudice.
The American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER), a group founded by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, argued that a 1989 law requiring that 'no less than two of the nine board members shall be of a minority race' on the board violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Huffaker, appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump, dismissed the case without weighing in on the merits of the case after the litigants agreed to end it.
Pamela Wyatt, president of the Alabama Association of Real Estate Brokers (AAREB), a mostly-Black organization that intervened to preserve the law, said in a statement that the case 'allowed us to demonstrate how important state laws ensuring diversity on state boards are to people in Alabama.'
'State boards make decisions that affect all Alabamians and should be reflective of the communities they serve,' the statement said. 'For the past three decades, this Alabama law has aimed to ensure that state boards reflect the state's rich diversity, and we are thrilled that this case has been dismissed with prejudice.'
The association intervened in the case after Gov. Kay Ivey's office said in court filings that the regulations were an 'unconstitutional requirement that 'she does not—and will not—enforce,'' according to court documents. The governor's office did object to AAER's challenge to inclusivity language in the statute.
Blum, the founder of the AAER, brought a lawsuit that led to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 to strike down race-conscious college admissions.
The AAER sued the state after the appraisers board rejected an application filed by Laura Clark, a member of AAER, because her appointment would have violated state statute that at least two of the board members be nonwhite.
Clark, who is white, also serves as the interim president of the Alabama Center for Law and Liberty, a conservative nonprofit law firm that says it advocates for 'limited government, free markets, and strong families.'
The AAREB said Alabama's long history of racial discrimination in housing made minority representation on the state appraisal board critical to fairness.
'This particular law is critically important for that organization and many, many, other real estate professionals of color, and people of color in the state, who will suffer immensely if the law is struck down,' said Brooke Menschel, an attorney with Democracy Forward, representing the AAREB, last year.
The parties proceeded to discovery last July after Huffaker rejected a request for summary judgment filed by AAER for the court to rule in its favor.
AAER was listed as a plaintiff in the case, which subjected it to discovery. That meant opposing counsel could depose the members and staff of the organization and request documents to be used as evidence during litigation.
'Rather than continue to litigate an issue that both plaintiff and defendant agree is unconstitutional, we went ahead and agreed to have the case be dismissed,' said Haley Dutch, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation.
In the spring, AAER requested to be removed as a party to the case and have Clark added instead, which would have subjected her to discovery.
'AAER brought this case on Ms. Clark's behalf, relying on the doctrine of associational standing to assert her interests, not its own,' AAER said in a request filed with the court in March to substitute Clark for AAER as the plaintiff. 'AAER is thus not a necessary or indispensable party to the litigation.'
Democracy Forward opposed the request.
'It is a fundamental rule of litigation that when you choose to sue you have to expose yourself to discovery,' Democracy Forward said in a filing in April opposing the substitution. 'AAER has a clear choice. If AAER does not want to litigate this case, it may voluntarily dismiss this litigation and Ms. Clark can file a new case if and when she has standing with regard to a live controversy. But if AAER wants to maintain this action, it must sit for a deposition, like all other litigants. It cannot shirk its discovery obligations.'
Huffaker rejected the request for substitution.
'What does appear clear is that AAER declared itself the jockey in a race that it started and has ridden this horse in this manner since February 2024,' Huffaker said. 'Clark could have been the jockey from the outset, but AAER chose not to proceed in that manner. Similarly, AAER could have switched riders (i.e., Clark for AAER) well before the amended pleadings deadline.'
'The Court will not tolerate such tactics,' Huffaker added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
17 minutes ago
- New York Post
Mamdani's ‘war' against Trump spells bad news for NYC
Zohran Mamdani's 'Five Boroughs Against Trump' tour makes oodles of sense for him — but only at the expense of the rest of the city. Not just because the last thing New Yorkers need is a mayor seeking a war with the White House, since they'd inevitably be the cannon fodder. More: Centering the mayoral debate on countering President Donald Trump encourages everyone to ignore all the issues Mamdani doesn't want voters thinking about, like how to make the streets and subways safe, the public schools functional and the local economy growing. It also prevents any focus on his privilege and inexperience, his cop-hatred, his obsessive loathing of Israel and the unworkability of pretty much his entire 'positive' agenda. Truth is, it mainly appeals to the vanity of his Democratic Socialists and their cheerleaders: Already imagining that their guy's surprise victory (in a Democratic primary) puts America on the brink of a new socialist era, they now get to also dream of Mamdani somehow turning the tide against Bad Orange Man. Except that he can't 'stand up' to Trump (beyond boring bits like the legal efforts to claw back improperly canceled grants that Mayor Eric Adams already has under way). Indeed, no mere mayor of any city can. Check the US Constitution: You'll find no mention of a mayoral power to check the president, Congress or for that matter the Supreme Court. And in the real world, a Mayor Mamdani declaring war on Trump would entail setting City Hall on fire and expecting the White House to burn down. New York City has zero leverage over the federal government, except perhaps 1) Wall Street's money — which socialists can't direct except via their trust funds — and 2) whatever power the national media has left — when the media's already done its damnedest to stop Trump. The feds, meanwhile, can screw New York eight ways to Sunday, starting with cutting back on the hundreds of billions it sends our way. Nor can local government 'withhold' New Yorkers' taxes, as some whiz kids in the Legislature suggest. State Attorney General Tish James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and a few complacent judges have already waged their worst lawfare against Trump, while then-Mayor Bill de Blasio did what he could against the Trump businesses that remain here. 'Trump-proofing' the city — the new tough talk from progressives around the country — is an empty threat, too: Federal law almost always trumps state and local ordinances. Playing tough guy and talking big is sure to give Mamdani lots of outraged outtakes for his social media. But he is writing checks that the people of NYC will have to pay.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Black mayors and leaders decry Trump's threats to deploy National Guard in cities
Black civil rights leaders and the mayors of several cities on Tuesday denounced the deployment of the National Guard to the nation's capital to combat crime, calling it 'fundamentally grandstanding' and 'a federal coup.' And by suggesting that other cities, also run by Black mayors, may be next, President Donald Trump was 'playing the worst game of racially divisive politics,' one rights leader said. Trump announced Monday that he would deploy 800 guard members to Washington, D.C., suggesting that the same could happen in New York City, Baltimore, Chicago and Oakland, California. 'When you walk down the street, you're going to see police or you're going to see FBI agents,' Trump said about Washington on Monday. 'And we will bring in the military if it's needed.' Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, said the president's actions and words were racially polarizing, considering crime rates in these cities are largely declining. 'This is a distraction at a time when these cities deserve credit because crime and violence are down in most American cities right now, and this is trying to distract from that success, and in effect, create a de facto police state in these cities,' Morial told NBC News. 'He's playing the worst game of racially divisive politics, and that's all it is,' Morial said. The Rev. Al Sharpton, the civil rights leader and head of the National Action Network, said in a statement that 'the people of Washington, D.C. ‒ especially those living on the streets, who need the most care ‒ will suffer, alongside the core principles of our Democracy.' And NAACP president Derrick Johnson questioned the declaration of an emergency in D.C., calling it a 'federal coup.' The White House responded to the criticisms in a statement to NBC News: 'There is nothing divisive about cracking down on crime in our nation's capital to make it safer and more beautiful for all residents and visitors from all around the world,' said White House assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers. 'Instead of criticizing the President's lawful actions to Make DC Safe Again, Democrat-run cities plagued by violent crime should focus on cleaning up their own streets. This is why Democrats continue to be so unpopular among everyday Americans — they think the President of the United States cracking down on crime in our nation's capital is a bad thing.' Trump federalized the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department over the weekend and called the nation's capital 'one of the most dangerous cities in the world.' It followed the fatal shooting of a congressional intern in July and the carjacking of a former Department of Government Efficiency staffer in D.C. last week, resulting in the arrest of two teenagers. Even with these violent acts, crime in D.C., has been declining for years and is currently at a 30-year low, according to the Justice Department. Nationwide, violent crime has declined, specifically murders, rape, aggravated assault and robbery, according to data released last week by the FBI. Black Americans are four times more likely to experience homelessness in their lifetimes than white Americans, according to a 2023 study published in the Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. The D.C. police union, citing staffing shortages and 'mismanagement,' said it supported the federal takeover, but only in a limited, temporary capacity that resulted in a better resourced department. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said Trump's move, which he had hinted at for months, is 'unsettling and unprecedented.' The administration forced the removal of the Black Lives Matter street painting that had been prominent in the city since 2020 by threatening to hold back millions in funding if it remained. On Monday, Bowser said that the city's police chief maintains authority over the police force. But Trump said that he had appointed the administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, Terry Cole, as the head of the Metropolitan Police Department. Morial said that while many National Guards are his friends, 'this is not an assignment they were trained for. This is not an assignment they signed up for. They're being used as political pawns. 'What the White House should be doing is restoring the SNAP cuts and restoring the Medicaid cuts, which are going to do damage to Washington, D.C., and other urban communities,' Morial said. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott was not happy Trump mentioned his city as a potential place where the National Guard would be deployed. 'This is the latest effort by the president to distract from the issues he should be focused on — including the roller coaster of the U.S. economy thanks to his policies,' Scott said in a statement Monday. 'When it comes to public safety in Baltimore, he should turn off the right-wing propaganda and look at the facts.' Homicides are down 28% in Baltimore this year alone, reaching the lowest level of any year on record, with overall crime rates lower than it's been in more than 50 years. 'We still have real work to do to build on this progress—but that work starts and ends here in Baltimore with the local, state, and federal partners who have gotten us this far.' And as Scott pointed out, 'it's not just Baltimore.' In Chicago, violent crime also is down by more than 30% and shootings almost 40%. Mayor Brandon Johnson said the dramatic reductions occurred even as Trump cut ' $158 million in funding for violence prevention programs in cities like Chicago,' as well as Los Angeles, New York, D.C. and Baltimore. Those cuts, he said, are on top of the Trump administration dismantling the Office of Gun Violence Prevention and terminating hundreds of grants for anti-violence programs across the country. 'If President Trump wants to help make Chicago safer, he can start by releasing the funds for anti-violence programs that have been critical to our work to drive down crime and violence,' Johnson said. 'Sending in the National Guard would only serve to destabilize our city and undermine our public safety efforts.' The mayor of Savannah, Georgia, Van R. Johnson II, president of the African American Mayors Association, said that while he respects the federal government's responsibility over ensuring national security, deploying the National Guard in D.C. 'may not be the most productive approach, especially when local leaders and law enforcement are already making significant strides in reducing crime and improving community trust.' Johnson implored the Trump administration to work with mayors and to 'support solutions that strengthen law enforcement partnerships and community engagement.' Republicans backed Trump's move. Rep. James Comer, of Kentucky, chair of the House oversight committee, said in a statement: 'For years, the D.C. Council's radical soft-on-crime agenda has emboldened criminals and put public safety at risk in our nation's capital.' Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, of New York, the House Democratic leader, vehemently disagreed, saying the action will be a negative force against 'the city's youth and homeless population.'
Time Magazine
2 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Can Trump Take Over Police in Other Cities Like He Did D.C.?
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday taking control of Washington, D.C.'s Police Department, part of a sweeping effort by his administration to crack down on crime. As 800 National Guard members and other federal law enforcement officers are fanning out across the nation's capital, Democratic leaders elsewhere are wondering if their cities could be next. That speculation was fueled in part by Trump's vow to intervene in other cities to fight crime, suggesting New York, Baltimore, Oakland as possible future targets. 'They're so far gone," he said. 'This will go further. We're starting very strongly with D.C." But Trump's authority to take over local police forces and send troops to patrol streets beyond Washington, D.C. is severely limited by law, legal experts say, since most cities fall under state jurisdiction where governors control the National Guard and local law enforcement. The nation's capital is not a state, giving the President a rare ability to deploy the National Guard and assume control of its police during declared emergencies. In other cities, the President cannot unilaterally commandeer police departments or deploy federal troops for ordinary law enforcement without state approval or a declared federal emergency, says Meryl Chertoff, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law School. 'It was contemplated by the Founders that the states would retain a certain degree of autonomy and a certain degree of individuation,' Chertoff says. 'Generally, the justification for the federal government to get involved is because either there's a commerce issue or a foreign policy issue that is national in scope.' She adds, 'When the President basically says 'I govern all of it,' the Constitution requires that there be some justification for that. And this notion that everything becomes an emergency is often used as a way of bypassing what would ordinarily be state autonomy.' In Washington, D.C., Trump invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which allows the president to take control of the city's police during an emergency for up to 30 days. His declaration of the situation as a public safety emergency drew criticism from local officials, as violent crime in the city is at a 30-year-low. Attorney General Pam Bondi was named to oversee the Metropolitan Police Department, while 800 National Guard troops were deployed to patrol the streets. 'Other cities are hopefully watching this,' Trump said. 'They're all watching and maybe they'll self clean up and maybe they'll self do this and get rid of the cashless bail thing and all of the things that caused the problem.' The law Trump invoked applies only to the District of Columbia because it lacks a governor to approve or deny the federal intervention. 'Washington, D.C. is in a unique position and is uniquely powerless vis-à-vis the federal government,' Chertoff says. In contrast, cities like New York, Baltimore, and Oakland are in states with elected governors who have legal authority over the National Guard and local police. Many of those leaders have pushed back strongly against Trump's threats to federalize their law enforcement. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, who announced earlier this month that the city's violent crime rate is at its lowest in decades, responded on social media: 'This is the latest effort by the president to distract from the issues he should be focused on — including the roller coaster of the U.S. economy thanks to his policies,' Scott wrote. 'When it comes to public safety in Baltimore, he should turn off the right-wing propaganda and look at the facts. Baltimore is the safest it's been in over 50 years. Homicides are down 28% this year alone, reaching the lowest level of any year on record.' Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker directly challenged Trump's authority on X, writing, 'Let's not lie to the public, you and I both know you have no authority to take over Chicago,' after the president blamed him for crime in the city. While Trump can't take over the police in other cities, he can deploy the military domestically under certain circumstances. Earlier this year, nearly 5,000 National Guard members and active-duty Marines were sent to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests and protect federal agents, bypassing the state's governor. In his first term, Trump sent federal agents and troops to patrol streets in cities like Portland in response to racial justice protests. In those situations, National Guard troops had specific mandates, and were not supposed to be involved in everyday policing. Legal experts argue that such deployments run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that generally prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. Laura Dickinson, a professor at George Washington Law School, noted that while the president has broad authority to call up the National Guard in D.C., it is highly unusual—and legally fraught—to deploy military forces for routine crime control in cities without a clear federal emergency. 'Democracies around the world and in our country, historically, don't use the military to do law enforcement on a regular basis,' Dickinson says, noting that the National Guard and Marines are not trained for every policing situation. 'It's risky and harmful and impractical for all sorts of reasons.' A legal challenge over Trump's declaration could soon be underway in D.C. Brian Schwalb, the city's Attorney General, called the order 'unlawful' but has not committed to filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration. Any litigation would likely take longer than 30 days, the maximum period Trump can retain those emergency powers without Congressional approval. In California, courts are currently reviewing the legality of Trump's order of federal troops to Los Angeles earlier this summer. Beyond direct intervention, Chertoff warns that the Trump Administration could leverage federal funding as a tool to pressure states and cities to comply with its law enforcement priorities 'There is so much federal money going into states,' she says, 'and what the President has done is say, if you don't cooperate with me on, let's say, sanctuary city policies or immigration enforcement, I am going to withhold money that goes into your programs.' This financial leverage, she says, is 'doing indirectly what he cannot under the 10th Amendment, which provides states with a degree of autonomy.'
