Isaiah Bradley
Banned
I know all cases require proof, his lawyer admitted to not having any
Supreme Court issues ruling in Byron Allen case
- Thread starter Counter Racist Male
- Start date
newworldafro
DeeperThanRapBiggerThanHH
IT WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION.
THE DEMOCRATIC JUSTICES VOTED AGAINST HIM TOO.
Here for the Juelz Fest.
Didnt Comcast bring out some obscure racial discrimination law that is going to hurt black folks or racial lawsuits moving forward.
Did we take Godzilla size L here?
sadly how does republicans help us when they get no pressure on issues cause folks know collectively republicans wont budge they have strong support system. you think republicans will support ados or their attoryney general fighting against or investing police brutality etc..?
I Really Mean It
Veteran
It's almost impossible for him to present evidence that they discriminated against him because he's black, although that is more than likely the cause, given the breadth of his entertainment empire and how successful he's already become in spite of not being on a platform like Comcast. I feel for the brother, but...
Last edited:
This ruling wasn't expected until the summer. They went ahead and pushed it under the rug in the middle of this pandemic in a uninamious decision. Those are our liberal superheroes
Last edited:
saturn7
Politics is an EXCHANGE!!!
Of course not. I'm not endorsing the GOP.
My comments are directed toward the "vote Blue No Matter who" crowd. What has that gotten us in the last 30 years?
Giving Dems 90% of the black vote is a big problems especially when we don't demand anything specific from them. They know they can get us to show up to the polls with fear-mongering about the "voting rights" and the Supreme Court. Turns out the so-called liberals on the SC aren't even ruling in our favor.
Barack spineless Obama was too fukking scared to even nominate a black person for the SC. He nominated Sotomayor, Kagan (who leans center right) and milqtoast ass moderate Merrick Garland.
saturn7
Politics is an EXCHANGE!!!
Obama sure knows how to pick em.
Liberal Justice Sides with Conservatives and States’ Rights in Criminal Justice Case
Barack Obama‘s handpicked replacement for legendary liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has once again sided with the conservative majority on a hot-button criminal justice issue.
In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Elena Kagan, an extremely limited insanity defense in the State of Kansas was deemed to be constitutionally sufficient under the Due Process Clause–which will now result in the petitioner being executed by the state. The ruling is being viewed as a decided setback for criminal justice reform advocates and the rights of criminal defendants.
continued.....
Liberal Justice Sides with Conservatives and States’ Rights in Criminal Justice Case
Liberal Justice Sides with Conservatives and States’ Rights in Criminal Justice Case
Barack Obama‘s handpicked replacement for legendary liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has once again sided with the conservative majority on a hot-button criminal justice issue.
In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Elena Kagan, an extremely limited insanity defense in the State of Kansas was deemed to be constitutionally sufficient under the Due Process Clause–which will now result in the petitioner being executed by the state. The ruling is being viewed as a decided setback for criminal justice reform advocates and the rights of criminal defendants.
continued.....
Liberal Justice Sides with Conservatives and States’ Rights in Criminal Justice Case
loyola llothta
☭☭☭
On god
loyola llothta
☭☭☭
You dont pay for Internet?
WOW. He lost 9-0 
Here's my understanding FYI, the case isn't necessarily over... read the details. Basically, Comcast said the law he wanted to use to prove racial discrimination was too vague and he needed more proof. ACCORDING TO THE SCOTUS, HE MUST PROVE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION WAS WHY COMCAST WOULD NOT WORK WITH HIM, AND ONLY THAT REASON, NOT ANY OTHER REASON. The Supreme Court basically kicked the decision back to a lower court so in order to even prevent his initial case from being dismissed, he has to PROVE he was racially discriminated and if he can't, then his case may get dismissed. Its low-key f'd up because it means you basically have to be able to prove it before you bring the case instead of having depositions, interviews, subpoenas, etc., to gather evidence to prove your claim.
@re'up tag other lawyers please
Supreme Court Vacates Ruling Allowing Bias Case Against Comcast
Supreme Court Vacates Ruling Allowing Bias Case Against Comcast
The Supreme Court is tightening the standard for discrimination lawsuits. In an opinion Monday, the nine justices unanimously decided that plaintiffs in bias suits must show at the pleading stage that racism is the but-for cause of injuries. Although the decision doesn't put an end to a multibillion dollar case against Comcast, the ruling vacates a prior ruling allowing Byron Allen's discrimination suit to move forward at the trial court.
Allen brought suit over Comcast's refusal to license his small channels devoted to topics including criminal justice, cars and pets. He alleges that Comcast's refusal is explained by racial animus and amounts to a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That would be the nation's oldest civil rights statute, put in place by Congress in the aftermath of the Civil War to vindicate the rights of former slaves. Among the provisions is one prohibiting discrimination when making and enforcing contracts, and as later interpreted by courts, this provision also gives citizens the ability to sue to enforce the right to contract.
The key legal controversy is what Allen must show at the outset of his lawsuit in order to get past a motion to dismiss into the discovery phase of the case.
Allen's companies contend that a plaintiff should be able to overcome early dismissal if they can allege facts plausibly showing that race was a “motivating factor” in a defendant’s decision. But, as argued by Comcast's lawyers during an oral hearing, not immediately dismissing substandard allegations of racial bias would make it "vastly easier to recover damages under the [Civil Rights Act of 1866] than under any...federal antidiscrimination law," and that the Supreme Court shouldn't "open the doors to discovery based on conclusory allegations or formulaic elements of the offense dressed up as factual assertions."
Today, led by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, the high court largely agrees with Comcast's position and deals a blow to African American lawmakers, business leaders and others who expressed concern that the high court was headed toward an outcome in this dispute that could undercut enforcement of racial equality.
While the Civil Rights Act of 1966 "does not expressly discuss causation, it is suggestive," writes Gorsuch. "The guarantee that each person is entitled to the 'same right...as is enjoyed by white citizens' directs our attention to the counterfactual — what would have happened if the plaintiff had been white? This focus fits naturally with the ordinary rule that a plaintiff must prove but-for causation."
Here's the full opinion.
The new opinion vacates the ruling from the district court allowing Allen's case to move forward. The controversy now moves back to the Ninth Circuit, which will consider whether Allen has met the newly articulated "but for" standard with an amended complaint that includes allegations that African Americans have a separate "Jim Crow" track when it comes to channel licensing.
Comcast is hopeful that the Supreme Court opinion eventually paves the road toward dismissal.
A spokesperson said, "We are pleased the Supreme Court unanimously restored certainty on the standard to bring and prove civil rights claims. The well-established framework that has protected civil rights for decades continues. The nation’s civil rights laws have not changed with this ruling; they remain the same as before the case was filed. We now hope that on remand the 9th Circuit will agree that the District Court properly applied that standard in dismissing Mr. Allen’s case three separate times for failing to state any claim. We are proud of our record on diversity and will not rest on this record. We will continue to look for ways to add even more innovative and diverse programming that appeals to our diverse viewership and continue our diversity and inclusion efforts across the company.”
Allen was understandably upset by the outcome.
He said, "Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has rendered a ruling that is harmful to the civil rights of millions of Americans. This is a very bad day for our country. We will continue our fight by going to Congress and the presidential candidates to revise the statute to overcome this decision by the United States Supreme Court, which significantly diminishes our civil rights."
Supreme Court Orders New Look at Byron Allen’s Comcast Bias Suit
Supreme Court Orders New Look at Byron Allen’s Comcast Bias Suit
By
Greg Stohr
March 23, 2020, 10:05 AM EDT Updated on March 23, 2020, 2:27 PM EDT
The U.S. Supreme Court ordered reconsideration of a decision to let Byron Allen’s media company sue cable television provider Comcast Corp. for racial discrimination, saying a federal appeals court needs to apply a stricter test to decide if the suit can go forward.
The unanimous ruling is a setback to Entertainment Studios Networks Inc., which blames discrimination for its inability to get its channels onto the carrier’s cable systems. Allen’s company is pressing a similar suit against Charter Communications Inc.
The justices issued four opinions online Monday, and not from the bench, breaking with longstanding tradition because of the coronavirus outbreak. The last time the court had ruled in an argued case without taking the bench was the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision.
Entertainment Studios says it tried for years to get its channels carried by Comcast. The suit alleges that Comcast officials refused to reach a deal, even while expanding offerings of lesser-known, white-owned channels.
At issue was a provision known as Section 1981, a Reconstruction-era law that bars racial discrimination in contracting. Comcast said the appeals court improperly made it easier to sue under that statute than under other civil rights laws.
In letting the suits go forward, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Entertainment Studios needed to show only that racial discrimination was a “motivating factor” in the decisions.
Gorsuch Opinion
The Supreme Court said Monday that Section 1981 requires Entertainment Studios to allege in its lawsuit that it would have received a contract had it not been for racial bias. That’s a standard the Supreme Court has applied in other contexts, including claims of age discrimination and retaliation.
Section 1981 “follows the usual rules, not any exception,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. “To prevail, a plaintiff must initially plead and ultimately prove that, but for race, it would not have suffered the loss of a legally protected right.”
Comcast says its decision was made for legitimate business reasons.
“We are pleased the Supreme Court unanimously restored certainty on the standard to bring and prove civil rights claims,” the company said in an emailed statement. “The well-established framework that has protected civil rights for decades continues.”
Allen said in an emailed statement that the court “has rendered a ruling that is harmful to the civil rights of millions of Americans.” He added, “This is a very bad day for our country.”
Civil rights advocates said the ruling will make it more difficult for discrimination victims to get their cases into court.
“This ruling weakens our nation’s oldest civil rights statute and may shut the courthouse door on some discrimination victims who, at the complaint stage, may simply be without the full range of evidence needed to meet the court’s tougher standard,” said Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, in an emailed statement.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a concurring opinion to stress that the court wasn’t deciding an important separate question, whether Section 1981 applies to only to the final contracting decision or also to the discussions that led up it.
“If race indeed accounts for Comcast’s conduct, Comcast should not escape liability for injuries inflicted during the contract-formation process,” Ginsburg wrote.
The case is Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, 18-1171.
Here's my understanding FYI, the case isn't necessarily over... read the details. Basically, Comcast said the law he wanted to use to prove racial discrimination was too vague and he needed more proof. ACCORDING TO THE SCOTUS, HE MUST PROVE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION WAS WHY COMCAST WOULD NOT WORK WITH HIM, AND ONLY THAT REASON, NOT ANY OTHER REASON. The Supreme Court basically kicked the decision back to a lower court so in order to even prevent his initial case from being dismissed, he has to PROVE he was racially discriminated and if he can't, then his case may get dismissed. Its low-key f'd up because it means you basically have to be able to prove it before you bring the case instead of having depositions, interviews, subpoenas, etc., to gather evidence to prove your claim.
@re'up tag other lawyers please
Supreme Court Vacates Ruling Allowing Bias Case Against Comcast
Supreme Court Vacates Ruling Allowing Bias Case Against Comcast
The Supreme Court is tightening the standard for discrimination lawsuits. In an opinion Monday, the nine justices unanimously decided that plaintiffs in bias suits must show at the pleading stage that racism is the but-for cause of injuries. Although the decision doesn't put an end to a multibillion dollar case against Comcast, the ruling vacates a prior ruling allowing Byron Allen's discrimination suit to move forward at the trial court.
Allen brought suit over Comcast's refusal to license his small channels devoted to topics including criminal justice, cars and pets. He alleges that Comcast's refusal is explained by racial animus and amounts to a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That would be the nation's oldest civil rights statute, put in place by Congress in the aftermath of the Civil War to vindicate the rights of former slaves. Among the provisions is one prohibiting discrimination when making and enforcing contracts, and as later interpreted by courts, this provision also gives citizens the ability to sue to enforce the right to contract.
The key legal controversy is what Allen must show at the outset of his lawsuit in order to get past a motion to dismiss into the discovery phase of the case.
Allen's companies contend that a plaintiff should be able to overcome early dismissal if they can allege facts plausibly showing that race was a “motivating factor” in a defendant’s decision. But, as argued by Comcast's lawyers during an oral hearing, not immediately dismissing substandard allegations of racial bias would make it "vastly easier to recover damages under the [Civil Rights Act of 1866] than under any...federal antidiscrimination law," and that the Supreme Court shouldn't "open the doors to discovery based on conclusory allegations or formulaic elements of the offense dressed up as factual assertions."
Today, led by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, the high court largely agrees with Comcast's position and deals a blow to African American lawmakers, business leaders and others who expressed concern that the high court was headed toward an outcome in this dispute that could undercut enforcement of racial equality.
While the Civil Rights Act of 1966 "does not expressly discuss causation, it is suggestive," writes Gorsuch. "The guarantee that each person is entitled to the 'same right...as is enjoyed by white citizens' directs our attention to the counterfactual — what would have happened if the plaintiff had been white? This focus fits naturally with the ordinary rule that a plaintiff must prove but-for causation."
Here's the full opinion.
The new opinion vacates the ruling from the district court allowing Allen's case to move forward. The controversy now moves back to the Ninth Circuit, which will consider whether Allen has met the newly articulated "but for" standard with an amended complaint that includes allegations that African Americans have a separate "Jim Crow" track when it comes to channel licensing.
Comcast is hopeful that the Supreme Court opinion eventually paves the road toward dismissal.
A spokesperson said, "We are pleased the Supreme Court unanimously restored certainty on the standard to bring and prove civil rights claims. The well-established framework that has protected civil rights for decades continues. The nation’s civil rights laws have not changed with this ruling; they remain the same as before the case was filed. We now hope that on remand the 9th Circuit will agree that the District Court properly applied that standard in dismissing Mr. Allen’s case three separate times for failing to state any claim. We are proud of our record on diversity and will not rest on this record. We will continue to look for ways to add even more innovative and diverse programming that appeals to our diverse viewership and continue our diversity and inclusion efforts across the company.”
Allen was understandably upset by the outcome.
He said, "Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has rendered a ruling that is harmful to the civil rights of millions of Americans. This is a very bad day for our country. We will continue our fight by going to Congress and the presidential candidates to revise the statute to overcome this decision by the United States Supreme Court, which significantly diminishes our civil rights."
Supreme Court Orders New Look at Byron Allen’s Comcast Bias Suit
Supreme Court Orders New Look at Byron Allen’s Comcast Bias Suit
By
Greg Stohr
March 23, 2020, 10:05 AM EDT Updated on March 23, 2020, 2:27 PM EDT
Lower court used wrong standard in allowing suit, justices say
Justices break tradition by issuing four opinions just online
The U.S. Supreme Court ordered reconsideration of a decision to let Byron Allen’s media company sue cable television provider Comcast Corp. for racial discrimination, saying a federal appeals court needs to apply a stricter test to decide if the suit can go forward.
The unanimous ruling is a setback to Entertainment Studios Networks Inc., which blames discrimination for its inability to get its channels onto the carrier’s cable systems. Allen’s company is pressing a similar suit against Charter Communications Inc.
The justices issued four opinions online Monday, and not from the bench, breaking with longstanding tradition because of the coronavirus outbreak. The last time the court had ruled in an argued case without taking the bench was the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision.
Entertainment Studios says it tried for years to get its channels carried by Comcast. The suit alleges that Comcast officials refused to reach a deal, even while expanding offerings of lesser-known, white-owned channels.
At issue was a provision known as Section 1981, a Reconstruction-era law that bars racial discrimination in contracting. Comcast said the appeals court improperly made it easier to sue under that statute than under other civil rights laws.
In letting the suits go forward, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Entertainment Studios needed to show only that racial discrimination was a “motivating factor” in the decisions.
Gorsuch Opinion
The Supreme Court said Monday that Section 1981 requires Entertainment Studios to allege in its lawsuit that it would have received a contract had it not been for racial bias. That’s a standard the Supreme Court has applied in other contexts, including claims of age discrimination and retaliation.
Section 1981 “follows the usual rules, not any exception,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. “To prevail, a plaintiff must initially plead and ultimately prove that, but for race, it would not have suffered the loss of a legally protected right.”
Comcast says its decision was made for legitimate business reasons.
“We are pleased the Supreme Court unanimously restored certainty on the standard to bring and prove civil rights claims,” the company said in an emailed statement. “The well-established framework that has protected civil rights for decades continues.”
Allen said in an emailed statement that the court “has rendered a ruling that is harmful to the civil rights of millions of Americans.” He added, “This is a very bad day for our country.”
Civil rights advocates said the ruling will make it more difficult for discrimination victims to get their cases into court.
“This ruling weakens our nation’s oldest civil rights statute and may shut the courthouse door on some discrimination victims who, at the complaint stage, may simply be without the full range of evidence needed to meet the court’s tougher standard,” said Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, in an emailed statement.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a concurring opinion to stress that the court wasn’t deciding an important separate question, whether Section 1981 applies to only to the final contracting decision or also to the discussions that led up it.
“If race indeed accounts for Comcast’s conduct, Comcast should not escape liability for injuries inflicted during the contract-formation process,” Ginsburg wrote.
The case is Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, 18-1171.
Last edited:
Supreme Court, In Unanimous Decision, Says Byron Allen Must Meet Higher Threshold To Continue Racial Bias Case Against Comcast — Update – Deadline
Supreme Court, In Unanimous Decision, Says Byron Allen Must Meet Higher Threshold To Continue Racial Bias Case Against Comcast — Update
Shutterstock
The justices, in a unanimous decision, ruled that to prevail, “a plaintiff must initially plead and ultimately prove that, but for race, it would not have suffered the loss of a legally protected right,” according to the opinion. (Read it here).
The decision means that Allen’s lawsuit will go back to the lower court, where he can again try to prove his case, but he will have a much greater threshold to meet for his case to survive.
At issue was whether Allen’s $20 billion lawsuit should have survived beyond the pleading stage by merely proving that, in Comcast’s decision to deny carriage of his Entertainment Studios’ channels, his race was a “motivating factor” or whether it was the sole cause, also known as “but for” in legalese. The ruling was viewed as having a potentially significant impact on future racial discrimination cases.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Allen last year, but in oral arguments some of the justices found fault with the lower court’s reasoning. The justices showed clear skepticism of issuing a definitive ruling that established a lower threshold in racial discrimination cases when a case is first filed, and a higher one if it reaches a trial.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who delivered the opinion for the court, wrote, “Here, a plaintiff bears the burden of showing that race was a but-for cause of its injury. And, while the materials the plaintiff can rely on to show causation may change as a lawsuit progresses from filing to judgment, the burden itself remains constant.” The opinion was posted online only, as the justices have postponed in-person proceedings out of concerns over the spread of the coronavirus.
At the oral arguments, Erwin Chemerinsky, who was arguing for Allen, acknowledged that he eventually would have to show that race was the sole cause for Comcast’s rejection. But he argued that it would be an “insurmountable burden” to meet if plaintiffs have to prove that at the outset of the case, as they would not have the benefit of conducting depositions and discovery.
The case hinged on a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that holds that African Americans must have the same right to contracts as whites.
A number of civil rights groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, sided with Allen in the case, while the Department of Justice supported Comcast’s position.
In a statement, Comcast said, they “are pleased the Supreme Court unanimously restored certainty on the standard to bring and prove civil rights claims. The well-established framework that has protected civil rights for decades continues. The nation’s civil rights laws have not changed with this ruling; they remain the same as before the case was filed.
They added, “We now hope that on remand the 9th Circuit will agree that the District Court properly applied that standard in dismissing Mr. Allen’s case three separate times for failing to state any claim.”
The company has defended its diversity record, and said that “we will continue to look for ways to add even more innovative and diverse programming that appeals to our diverse viewership and continue our diversity and inclusion efforts across the company.”
In a statement, Allen decried the decision. “Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has rendered a ruling that is harmful to the civil rights of millions of Americans,” he said. “This is a very bad day for our country. We will continue our fight by going to Congress and the presidential candidates to revise the statute to overcome this decision by the United States Supreme Court, which significantly diminishes our civil rights.”
That the justices reached a unanimous decision was a bit of a surprise, given the partisan divide on the court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a concurring opinion, wrote that “the court holds today that Entertainment Studios must plead and prove that race was the but-for cause of its injury—in other words, that Comcast would have acted differently if Entertainment Studios were not African- American owned. But if race indeed accounts for Comcast’s conduct, Comcast should not escape liability for injuries inflicted during the contract-formation process. The Court has reserved that issue for consideration on remand, enabling me to join its opinion.” Ginsburg was not present for oral arguments because of illness, but she did participate in deliberations.
Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said that the ruling will make it more difficult for plaintiffs in civil rights cases.
“This ruling weakens our nation’s oldest civil rights statute and may shut the courthouse door on some discrimination victims who, at the complaint stage, may simply be without the full range of evidence needed to meet the court’s tougher standard,” she said in a statement. “That said, the court has ordered the district court to review its earlier decision to determine whether [Byron Allen’s] claims satisfy the standard. We will be watching closely to ensure that courts give discrimination victims a fair opportunity to be heard in these cases.” Her organization was part of an amicus brief in the case.
Supreme Court, In Unanimous Decision, Says Byron Allen Must Meet Higher Threshold To Continue Racial Bias Case Against Comcast — Update
Shutterstock
The justices, in a unanimous decision, ruled that to prevail, “a plaintiff must initially plead and ultimately prove that, but for race, it would not have suffered the loss of a legally protected right,” according to the opinion. (Read it here).
The decision means that Allen’s lawsuit will go back to the lower court, where he can again try to prove his case, but he will have a much greater threshold to meet for his case to survive.
At issue was whether Allen’s $20 billion lawsuit should have survived beyond the pleading stage by merely proving that, in Comcast’s decision to deny carriage of his Entertainment Studios’ channels, his race was a “motivating factor” or whether it was the sole cause, also known as “but for” in legalese. The ruling was viewed as having a potentially significant impact on future racial discrimination cases.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Allen last year, but in oral arguments some of the justices found fault with the lower court’s reasoning. The justices showed clear skepticism of issuing a definitive ruling that established a lower threshold in racial discrimination cases when a case is first filed, and a higher one if it reaches a trial.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who delivered the opinion for the court, wrote, “Here, a plaintiff bears the burden of showing that race was a but-for cause of its injury. And, while the materials the plaintiff can rely on to show causation may change as a lawsuit progresses from filing to judgment, the burden itself remains constant.” The opinion was posted online only, as the justices have postponed in-person proceedings out of concerns over the spread of the coronavirus.
At the oral arguments, Erwin Chemerinsky, who was arguing for Allen, acknowledged that he eventually would have to show that race was the sole cause for Comcast’s rejection. But he argued that it would be an “insurmountable burden” to meet if plaintiffs have to prove that at the outset of the case, as they would not have the benefit of conducting depositions and discovery.
The case hinged on a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that holds that African Americans must have the same right to contracts as whites.
A number of civil rights groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, sided with Allen in the case, while the Department of Justice supported Comcast’s position.
In a statement, Comcast said, they “are pleased the Supreme Court unanimously restored certainty on the standard to bring and prove civil rights claims. The well-established framework that has protected civil rights for decades continues. The nation’s civil rights laws have not changed with this ruling; they remain the same as before the case was filed.
They added, “We now hope that on remand the 9th Circuit will agree that the District Court properly applied that standard in dismissing Mr. Allen’s case three separate times for failing to state any claim.”
The company has defended its diversity record, and said that “we will continue to look for ways to add even more innovative and diverse programming that appeals to our diverse viewership and continue our diversity and inclusion efforts across the company.”
In a statement, Allen decried the decision. “Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has rendered a ruling that is harmful to the civil rights of millions of Americans,” he said. “This is a very bad day for our country. We will continue our fight by going to Congress and the presidential candidates to revise the statute to overcome this decision by the United States Supreme Court, which significantly diminishes our civil rights.”
That the justices reached a unanimous decision was a bit of a surprise, given the partisan divide on the court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a concurring opinion, wrote that “the court holds today that Entertainment Studios must plead and prove that race was the but-for cause of its injury—in other words, that Comcast would have acted differently if Entertainment Studios were not African- American owned. But if race indeed accounts for Comcast’s conduct, Comcast should not escape liability for injuries inflicted during the contract-formation process. The Court has reserved that issue for consideration on remand, enabling me to join its opinion.” Ginsburg was not present for oral arguments because of illness, but she did participate in deliberations.
Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said that the ruling will make it more difficult for plaintiffs in civil rights cases.
“This ruling weakens our nation’s oldest civil rights statute and may shut the courthouse door on some discrimination victims who, at the complaint stage, may simply be without the full range of evidence needed to meet the court’s tougher standard,” she said in a statement. “That said, the court has ordered the district court to review its earlier decision to determine whether [Byron Allen’s] claims satisfy the standard. We will be watching closely to ensure that courts give discrimination victims a fair opportunity to be heard in these cases.” Her organization was part of an amicus brief in the case.
The so called liberals couldnt muster a dissent that could be used in future decisions to overturn this one.
Unanimous decision but somehow folks still blaming everybody/everything but the weak azz case that was based solely on the superficial form of identity politics
hoping to find dirt after making accusations using historical Black plight to clout chase...another self serving clown that successfully manipulated the dap fishermen of thecoli
It's almost impossible for him to present evidence that they discriminated against him because he's black, although that is more than likely the cause, given the breadth of his entertainment empire and how successful he's already become in spite of not being on a platform like Comcast. I feel for the brother, but...
This is an interesting black lawyer perspective from someone who argues federal law
@Red Shield @Michael's Black Son @Sukairain @YouMadd? @Basil of Baker Street @SupremexKing @Clutch Robinson @Cat piss martini @AndroidHero @Pirius Black @ba'al @panopticon @johnedwarduado @SJUGRAD13
Last edited:
The reason the case made it through the Court of Appeals was because there was proof.
What the Supreme Court wants is a letter from Comcast that explicitly states that they’re discriminating because he’s Black - which is insane as a standard. Even if they refuse to hire him and screamed “******” for an hour straight as soon as he left the room, unless he has a video recording - they can slide right on by with no liability.