Southwest Airlines likely to pay 1 cent to end DEI-related lawsuit
By Jonathan Stempel
(Reuters) - A U.S. judge signaled he will order Southwest Airlines to pay 1 cent to end a lawsuit by a conservative group alleging that a now-defunct program awarding free flights to Hispanic college students was discriminatory.
U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater on Wednesday rejected a request by Edward Blum's American Alliance for Equal Rights to address the merits of its case, after Southwest "unconditionally surrendered" by scrapping its ¡Lánzate! program.
Blum has tried for decades to remove racial considerations from parts of American life, including a successful push to essentially end affirmative action in college admissions.
U.S. President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has made removing diversity, equity and inclusion policies from society a hallmark of his second White House term.
Southwest's ¡Lánzate! program had since 2004 provided assistance to 1,500 Hispanic undergraduate and graduate students who lived at least 200 miles (322 km) from campus.
Fitzwater said it would waste time and money to keep litigating whether the program violated a Civil War-era law barring racial bias in contracting, because the plaintiff achieved "total victory" after Southwest effectively gave up.
"Granting an obstinate plaintiff total victory upon the defendant's unconditional surrender is a reasonable response to the problems and needs confronting the court's fair administration of justice," the Dallas-based judge wrote.
Fitzwater gave both sides until May 28 to object.
Southwest, based in Dallas, had no immediate comment on Thursday. Lawyers for the plaintiff did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
While the plaintiff had sought 1 cent in damages, its lawyers said the case's merits should be addressed because it concerned "issues of substantial public importance" regarding intentional ethnic discrimination by a major company.
"Southwest cannot avoid liability by paying the Alliance via a judgment that's not really a judgment, any more than it could avoid liability by paying the Alliance via no judgment," the lawyers wrote.
The case is American Alliance for Equal Rights v Southwest Airlines Co, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, No. 24-01209.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
17 minutes ago
- Associated Press
ABC's Terry Moran is suspended following his social media post calling Trump and Miller haters
NEW YORK (AP) — ABC News has suspended correspondent Terry Moran for calling Trump administration deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller a 'world class hater' in a since-deleted social media post. Moran's post was swiftly condemned by officials in the Republican administration, including Vice President J.D. Vance. ABC News, in a statement, said it 'stands for objectivity and impartiality in its news coverage and does not condone subjective personal attacks on others.' The New York-based network said Moran was suspended pending further evaluation. Moran, who interviewed President Donald Trump a few weeks ago, said in his post on X at 12:06 a.m. on Sunday that the president was a world-class hater, too. But he wrote that for the president, his hatred is a means to an end, 'and that end is his own glorification.' For Miller, Moran's post said, 'his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He eats his hate.' Vance, on X, said that Moran's post was 'dripping with hatred.' The vice president wrote: 'Remember that every time you watch ABC's coverage of the Trump administration.' Miller, on X, said Moran's 'full public meltdown' exposed the corporate press. 'For decades, the privileged anchor and reporters narrating and gatekeeping our society have been radicals adopting a journalist's pose. Terry pulled off his mask.'
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Only the Senate can stop the largest wealth transfer in US history
Last week, the House Republican majority passed what can only be called their 'Big Billionaire Bill' — a budget reconciliation measure that amounts to one the largest transfers of wealth in American history. This measure literally steals from the poor and the working class to give to the ultra-rich. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I know firsthand how this bill would take from working people and give to the ultra-wealthy. The consequences will be staggering if it becomes law. Republicans promised tax cuts for all. But under their bill, families making $30,000 or less will actually pay approximately $20 billion more in taxes cumulatively over the next decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. That's not even counting the impact of losing Medicaid or the higher cost of living caused by Trump's tariffs. Meanwhile, billionaires will pocket an average tax break of $255,000 a year. I grew up working class, working jobs at Target and Subway. Republicans want to make people like me believe that they're helping while raising taxes on them, cutting Medicaid and SNAP, and then telling them to have more babies. That's insulting. My Republican colleagues moved their second attempt at a House Budget Committee hearing to the dead of night — after a failed first try and following late-night markups in several committees the previous week. Alongside my Democratic colleagues, we spent nearly 30 hours grinding their agenda nearly to a halt, from Wednesday at 1 a.m. to to 11 p.m. in the Rules Committee and on the floor. The fact that they had to move their last hearing before it could move to the floor at 1 a.m. tells me they're ashamed of themselves. And they should be. Working families want billionaires to pay their fair share, not to lose their health care and nutrition programs for their kids. I hear it from Americans at town halls, on social media, and even at the grocery store. Millions across the country could lose Medicaid coverage: 3.4 million in California, 400,000 in North Carolina, 250,000 in Minnesota, 380,000 in Texas, 390,000 in Virginia, and 1.2 million in New York — moms, kids, and seniors who could be left without health care. These are real people in every district, many represented by Republicans who voted for this bill. Nearly half of new moms and their babies in California rely on Medicaid and could lose their care. Seniors who can't get enough coverage through Medicare will lose. Sons and daughters who can't afford their parents' nursing home care will lose. People in rural communities, where hospitals are already closing, will lose too. Republicans claim to be the party of families. But their bill makes it harder for working people to get by — harder to welcome a new child, get postpartum care, or afford basic medical needs. Worse, Republicans will make it harder for millions of families to afford groceries every month thanks to cuts to nutrition assistance programs. When billionaires can get richer at the expense of working families, what does that say about us as a nation? I fear America's promise of hope and opportunity will dim if this administration keeps pushing us to the point where no one sees a future here anymore. But I refuse to accept a future where America's greatness is measured by the size of its tax breaks for billionaires instead of the strength of our working families. I call on the Senate to reject this bill and protect the American Dream for everyone. Jimmy Gomez, a Democrat, represents California's 34th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new travel ban takes effect as tensions escalate over immigration enforcement
President Donald Trump's new ban on travel to the US by citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries took effect Monday amid rising tension over the president's escalating campaign of immigration enforcement. The new proclamation, which Trump signed last week, applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also imposes heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the US and don't hold a valid visa. The ban does not revoke visas previously issued to people from countries on the list, according to guidance issued Friday to all US diplomatic missions. However, unless an applicant meets narrow criteria for an exemption to the ban, his or her application will be rejected starting Monday. Travelers with previously issued visas should still be able to enter the US even after the ban takes effect. During Trump's first term, a hastily written executive order ordering the denial of entry to citizens of mainly Muslim countries created chaos at numerous airports and other ports of entry, prompting successful legal challenges and major revisions to the policy. No such disruption was immediately discernible at Los Angeles International Airport in the hours after the new ban took effect. Haitian-American Elvanise Louis-Juste, who was at the airport earlier Sunday in Newark, New Jersey, awaiting a flight to her home state of Florida, said many Haitians wanting to come to the US are simply seeking to escape violence and unrest. 'I have family in Haiti, so it's pretty upsetting to see and hear,' Louis-Juste, 23, said of the travel ban. 'I don't think it's a good thing. I think it's very upsetting.' Many immigration experts say the new ban is more carefully crafted and appears designed to beat court challenges that hampered the first by focusing on the visa application process. Trump said this time that some countries had 'deficient' screening for passports and other public documents or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. He relied extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of people who remain in the US after their visas expired. Measuring overstay rates has challenged experts for decades, but the government has made a limited attempt annually since 2016. Trump's proclamation cites overstay rates for eight of the 12 banned countries. Trump also tied the new ban to a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. US officials say the man charged in the attack overstayed a tourist visa. He is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump's restricted list. The ban was quickly denounced by groups that provide aid and resettlement help to refugees. 'This policy is not about national security – it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, a nonprofit international relief organization. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban does make exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the US government during the two-decade-long war there. Afghanistan had been one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement his first day in office.
