San Francisco Settles Lawsuit Brought by CFER & the ACR Project
San Francisco has settled its part of CFER and the ACR Project's challenge to its discriminatory guarantied income programs.
San Francisco has settled its part of CFER and the ACR Project's challenge to its discriminatory guarantied income programs.
As 2025 comes to a close, we’re happy to report that policymakers across all three branches of the federal government are confronting the fundamental Constitutional problems with how Congress structured the Minority Serving Institutions programs.
The ACR Project and Manhattan Institute jointly comment in support of CFPB's proposed improvements to its Equal Credit Opportunity Act regulations.
The ACR Project filed an administrative complaint with the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education, challenging the illegality of the University of California-Hispanic Serving Institutions Doctoral Diversity Initiative. The program prefers to send UC's funding to even private schools enrolling the proscribed racial balance than to let those dollars fund only work at UC campuses that don't.
Public Records reflect that Wright State continued to directly administer racially discriminatory scholarships long after Ohio's AG instructed public institutions to comply with federal nondiscrimination law.
EDTN approves the ACR Project's intervention into the Constitutional challenge to the discriminatory provisions of the HSI programs.
The ACR Project filed briefing at SCOTUS, supporting West Virginia's defense of its schools' separate boys' and girls' sports programs.
In October 2024, we filed with the en banc Eleventh [...]
The ACR Project filed a comment supporting the DOL's rescission of rules rendered a nullity by President Trump's Equality Order. We highlighted additional justifications for the move and suggested further potential improvements that could be made to the related final regulations.
With Manhattan Institute, the ACR Project filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court. It asks the Justices to take a case and use it to free litigants from the standing trap (a pure catch-22) the Fourth Circuit has created to prevent challenges to racially discriminatory governmental presumptions.