Legal Experts: How U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling on ‘Reverse Discrimination' Will Make Things Worse For Black Americans
After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a 'reverse discrimination' claim, Black Americans are left wondering how this new precedent will impact them. The court's decision came down on Thursday (June 5), adding to the growing list of the judges' past controversial decisions on civil and social liberties.
A woman named Marlean Ames is suing her employer in Ohio after she alleged she was passed up on a promotion because she is a straight woman, according to BBC. Instead, her gay boss hired another gay employee for the job, which Ames claims was a clear act of gender discrimination. Several lower level courts didn't agree with her.
That's when she took things to the highest court in the land, who ultimately ruled with an unanimous vote.
The Root spoke to Marc Brown, founding attorney at Marc Brown law Firm, who said 'the floodgates have been let open' for discrimination cases of all kinds. In a country where anti-DEI legislation and other attacks to Black history and education has become the norm, the court's ruling is a 'rolling back of some protections that the Supreme Court previously made available for minorities– people that have been subjected to centuries of discrimination,' Brown said. 'But it doesn't mean that she [Ames] wins.'
The Supreme Court ruled on the principle of the Constitution, not Ames' case itself. She still must present her case in a lower level court. Regardless, it's not lost on Brown the future implications of such a decision.
'There will likely be a heavy increase of these reverse discrimination lawsuits,' Brown continued. For him, this ruling emphasizes a trend started by majority groups. 'I've noticed over the years, whenever the majority feels threatened or upset, new terms are created.'
The term 'reverse discrimination' was in direct retaliation to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. 'When you look at the historical systemic inequalities over the years or centuries, you know there is no way that minorities are in the power to really discriminate against these individuals,' Brown added.
For anyone paying attention to the conservative-led Supreme Court recent history, Ames decision is one of the many giving legs to right-wing agendas. Whether it's reversing Roe v. Wade or Affirmative action in schools back in 2023, the Justices — three of whom were hand picked by President Donald Trump — have made their position clear. But according to Stacey Marques, ESQ, Black Americans shouldn't panic.
'What I tell my sons is the same thing I tell myself: Make sure you bring your A-game to everything that you have the opportunity to work on,' she said. The mother of two also knows the challenges of being Black in America, and she warned Black folks to get prepared.
'With this anti-DEI climate that we're in — also this climate that is encouraging reverse discrimination lawsuits, it's gonna require the younger generation to adopt the ideals as well as the work ethic of the older generation in order to not only survive but to excel,' she added.
Marques has been practicing for 25 years, and she said the ruling only adds more to the already full plates of lawyers nationwide. 'Lawyers are so busy now because there's so many things happening,' she said referring to Trump's blitz of pending lawsuits and court decisions. 'We are in a constitutional crisis.'
continued to
11 years
'Anytime the Supreme Court speaks, everyone listens.'
'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
39 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Walmart sends a hard-nosed message to employees
Walmart (WMT) , the largest retail chain in the U.S., has sent a harsh message to employees after a controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling. For years, President Donald Trump has promoted his plan to secure the U.S. borders and conduct mass deportations of immigrants who are in the country illegally. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter "Illegal immigration costs our country billions and billions of dollars each year…And I will therefore take every lawful action at my disposal to address this crisis," said Trump during a briefing in the White House in 2018. Related: IRS sends stern warning to employees after layoffs Shortly after Trump was sworn in for a second term as president in January, he signed several executive orders focused on cracking down on illegal immigration. Some are targeted at increasing border security, reinstating "enhanced vetting" of visa applicants, and adding limits on birthright citizenship. Last week, the Trump administration gained major ground in its immigration agenda when the Supreme Court gave it the green light to cut a humanitarian program that granted temporary U.S. residency to over 500,000 immigrants from Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. The decision comes after the court ruled in another case that the administration could also remove temporary legal status from roughly 350,000 Venezuelan migrants. Shortly after the Supreme Court's latest ruling, Walmart reportedly informed its stores nationwide to identify workers who will lose their work authorization due to the ruling, according to a recent report from Bloomberg. Related: Walmart suffers another major boycott from customers The retailer also fired an unknown number of workers in Florida and Texas who will soon lose temporary legal residency in the U.S. Walmart even warned employees in at least two Florida stores that they will be let go if they don't get new work authorizations. Walmart's move follows in the footsteps of Disney, which reportedly warned its Venezuelan employees in Florida that their jobs are at risk after the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to cut protections for thousands of Venezuelans last month. On May 20, Disney placed those employees (45 cast members) on a 30-day unpaid leave and told them they would be fired if they did not obtain new work authorization by the end of the 30-day period. So far, since Trump took office on Jan. 20, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have arrested over 100,000 immigrants. ICE is reportedly arresting up to 2,000 immigrants a day. Last year, under the Biden administration, ICE was making 300 daily arrests. The dramatic increase in arrests comes after the Trump administration's "Border Czar" Tom Homan warned in an interview last year that the U.S. will soon see a "historic deportation operation." More Labor: Amazon CEO gives hard-nosed message to employeesIRS has an alarming solution to a growing problem after layoffsJPMorgan Chase CFO issues stern warning to employees These efforts have so far sparked controversy on social media and massive protests in a few cities across the nation. The Trump administration's deportation plan can also have a major domino effect in workplaces across the country, as immigrants make up a significant portion of the U.S. workforce. Out of the roughly 169 million workers in the U.S., over 32 million are immigrants, which is about 19% of the workforce. Many industries in the U.S. have also relied on the employment of undocumented immigrant workers. According to a report from the American Immigration Council last year, the U.S. is estimated to have over 7.5 million undocumented workers in various industries. Construction is the top industry with the most undocumented workers, who make up about 14% of its workforce. Following construction is the agriculture industry, where almost 13% of its workforce is made up of undocumented workers. The hospitality industry comes in as No. 3, as undocumented workers make up about 7% of its workforce. Related: Dollar General suffers major boycott from customers The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
WorldPride attendees to march through Washington in defiance of Trump
By Daniel Trotta WASHINGTON (Reuters) -LGBTQ+ people from around the world will march through the streets of Washington on Saturday in a joyful celebration meant to show defiance to President Donald Trump's rollback of queer rights. The parade route will come within one block of the White House grounds in one of the final main events of the weeks-long WorldPride celebration. On Sunday a more political event, dubbed a rally and march, will convene at the Lincoln Memorial, a revered space in the U.S. civil rights movement as the site of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963. Events will play out in the U.S. capital in the wake of the Trump administration's measures to curtail LGBTQ+ rights. The Republican president has issued executive orders limiting transgender rights, banning transgender people from serving in the armed forces, and rescinding anti-discrimination policies for LGBTQ+ people as part of a campaign to repeal diversity, equity and inclusion programs. While proponents of DEI consider it necessary to correct historic inequities, the White House has described it as a form of discrimination based on race or gender, and said its transgender policy protects women by keeping transgender women out of shared spaces. Moreover, the White House said it has appointed a number of openly gay people to cabinet posts or judgeships, and noted that the Trump administration took steps to decriminalize homosexuality globally, and that its 2019 initiative "Ending the HIV Epidemic" aimed to cut HIV infections by 90% by 2030. "The President is honored to serve all Americans," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. Event organizers said they were unaware of any counterprotests or anti-LGBTQ+ demonstrations planned for Saturday or Sunday. The National Park Service, however, has decided to fence off Dupont Circle, a popular public space, until Sunday night at the request of the U.S. Park Police, which said closure was necessary to "secure the park, deter potential violence, reduce the risk of destructive acts and decrease the need for extensive law enforcement presences." Capital Pride Alliance, which is organizing WorldPride events, said it was "frustrated and disappointed" at the closure. "This beloved landmark is central to the community that WorldPride intends to celebrate and honor. It's much more than a park, for generations it's been a gathering place for DC's LGBTQ+ community, hosting First Amendment assemblies and memorial services for those we lost to the AIDS epidemic and following tragic events like the Pulse nightclub shooting," the alliance said.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Will Harvard win its legal battle against the Trump administration?
The high court has given more leeway to presidential powers, particularly on national security issues the White House has cited to justify its latest impositions on Harvard. Moreover, the battle of attrition could wear Harvard down on the financial front: the legal battles will be costly, and in the meantime, Harvard may lose students and scholars 'I think the government wins every time,' said Brad Banias, an immigration lawyer based in Charleston, S.C., and former trial attorney for the Justice Department. 'If I'm an international student and I have a choice between Harvard, Yale, Brown . . . why would I pick the one in a battle with the government?' Advertisement Under fire on multiple fronts, Harvard has filed two lawsuits against the administration: one to reverse the elimination of billions in federal funding after the school refused to agree to a series of demands; the second over the White House's efforts to block international students from attending Harvard, citing potential threats to national security. Advertisement On the latter fight, Harvard so far has won temporary relief. On Thursday night, US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a temporary restraining barring President Trump from denying visas to all students seeking entry to the country to attend Harvard. Last month, the judge temporarily halted the administration's effort to immediately revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students. In its lawsuit filed in May and amended Thursday, Harvard accused the administration of 'a blatant violation' of its First Amendment and due process rights as part of an ongoing, retaliatory campaign against Harvard and other elite schools by Trump. Banias said he believes the administration's actions against Harvard were 'unlawful retaliation' and predicted the school will obtain a permanent injunction to allow international students to continue their studies while the underlying lawsuit proceeds in court. But, he said, it's 'a coin flip' as to which side wins if the case reaches the Supreme Court. On the one hand, the court historically is hesitant to restrict a president's power on national security issues. Yet in this case, Banias said, the Trump administration is unlikely to prove that all Harvard student visa holders pose a national security threat. During Trump's first term, in a 5-4 vote in 2018, the Supreme Court upheld his ban on travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries, a victory that came after two prior versions of the ban were struck down. The court found presidents have broad statutory authority to make national security judgments involving immigration. Laurence Tribe, a law professor emeritus at Harvard, said he's confident the university would prevail before the Supreme Court. Advertisement 'This has nothing to do with national security,' said Tribe, a liberal lawyer who's argued before the court dozens of times. 'The courts aren't stupid; they recognize a fig leaf when they see one.' He said Harvard has no choice but to fight Trump's actions. He noted Columbia University's more conciliatory approach: The Ivy League school in New York City agreed to change certain internal policies earlier this year in the face of federal funding cuts, but the Trump administration has continued to hammer the college. On the same day Trump announced the latest move targeting the student visas of Harvard enrollees, his administration sent a letter to the accreditation agency that oversees Columbia, writing that the school has violated civil rights laws and asking it to open an investigation. 'Columbia has seen the consequences of trying to deal with him,' Tribe said. 'We are not going to cave.' Daniel DiMartino, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, said that if Harvard wins a permanent injunction, the school will be able to continue to admit foreign students, and likely run out the clock until Trump is out of office or the administration's attention shifts. 'If there is an injunction, essentially Harvard wins. If there is not an injunction, Harvard really is in trouble,' DiMartino said. But Trump's goal, he said, is not to stop foreign students from coming to Harvard: it's to cause the university enough problems that it has to agree to changes demanded by the White House. Trump and other conservatives say Harvard has discriminated against white and Asian people in admissions, failed to do enough to tackle antisemitism, and rebuffed efforts to have ideological diversity in its professorial ranks. Advertisement 'If their goal was actually just to forbid foreign students from Harvard, they would have done it much more slowly and given them notice,' DiMartino said. 'The administration is trying to make an example out of Harvard to threaten other universities into cooperating and not misbehaving.' And in a broad sense, with the legal fees that come with protracted fights, DiMartino said, 'Harvard will lose no matter what. It just matters how much they lose.' Harvard also sued the Trump administration in April after it announced it was slashing about $3 billion in federal grants to the university. That case is pending. Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge who teaches courses at Harvard Law School, said she believes the Supreme Court will come down on Harvard's side and predicted the case will move quickly because of the ongoing harm to the school and its students. Citing the administration's demand the school turn over disciplinary records and other information on international students, Gertner said the White House 'essentially wanted Harvard to be a whistle-blower,' and is now retaliating even though that information is not legally required or provided by any other schools. Northeastern constitutional law professor Jeremy Paul said the government is able to punish institutions that break the law, as the Trump administration says Harvard has in its handling of antisemitic incidents. But first, he said, they have to prove in front of a judge the institution has done so. They can't just make an allegation and then act unilaterally, as the administration has done, he said. 'The executive branch is acting as though they're both the prosecutor and the judge,' Paul said. Advertisement Shelley Murphy can be reached at
