Today, on behalf of a set of concerned Coca-Cola Company shareholders, the ACR Project and its co-counsel Offit|Kurman demanded that the company either publicly retract the discriminatory outside-counsel policies it announced in January or provide access to the corporate records related to the decision of Coca-Cola's officers and directors to adopt and retain those illegal policies.
Yesterday, the American Civil Rights Project submitted a comment on the Department of Education's proposal of new priorities for federal education funding. We applauded the Department, where it would prioritize teaching students to analyze information dispassionately and apply objective, consistent standards to determine the reliability of sources. We could not do the same, where the Department's failure to apply objective, consistent standards to sources appears to have led it to rely on those using inaccurate information to manipulate their audiences.
The American Civil Rights Project, a national civil rights organization, is investigating on behalf of shareholders the officers and directors of Coca Cola Company (NYSE: KO) for breaches of fiduciary duties.
Is all racism equally bad or does racial discrimination’s moral status turn on who is (mis)treating whom? We can learn from the literature on bullying why the first must be right.
Today, on behalf of the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, we filed with the Supreme Court this amicus brief, supporting the petition for certiorari filed by Students for Fair Admissions.
The ACR Project submitted a letter to the Montgomery County, [...]
Letter to Oregon Health Authority Concerning Proposal to Discriminate on the Basis of Race in Prioritizing Access to Covid Vaccines
The ACR Project submitted a letter to the Oregon Health [...]
Escaping the Goldilocks Problem: A Proposal That Would Enable States to Avoid Redistricting Litigation
For a generation, state and local governments have faced a Goldilocks problem when they redistrict. Courts require them to use race to design districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but they invalidate maps under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when racial considerations “predominated” in the drawing of districts. Seemingly every approach state and local governments have taken to try to draw districts that would comply with these dueling requirements leaves them in the crosshairs of plaintiffs and the federal judiciary: ignoring race entirely, following bright-line concentration rules established by Supreme Court precedents to assure protected classes’ voting power, deferring to the requests presented by representatives of protected classes, deferring to the decisions of nominally non-partisan redistricting panels, and more. There is also an obvious disconnect between voting reformers’ complaints about our current redistricting systems and those reformers’ proposed solutions. Almost no proposal on offer would solve these problems, and almost every proposal on the table would actually make them worse. Indeed, even the remedies imposed by courts have been attacked in later litigation as violating one or both of Goldilocks’ warring demands. But there is a solution to the Goldilocks problem. State and local governments can avoid further redistricting litigation under both the Constitution and Section 2 by simply getting out of the game and drawing no districts whatsoever. This piece originally ran, along with a response from Kevin St. John and a reply from the author, in The Federalist Society Review, Vol. 21.
An Update on Challenges to California’s Statutes Allocating Corporate Board Seats by Race, Ethnicity, Sex, and Gender
The furthest advanced effort of the California legislature to allocate opportunities on the basis of group identities has got to be the statutes (two passed in the last three years) to amend the state’s Corporations Code to dictate whom stockholders can elect as their directors. These allocations have been challenged in state and federal court, and -- should it survive those initial suits -- additional claims will surely follow. This piece originally ran on the blog of the Civil Rights Practice Group of the Federalist Society.
Things happen slow and then fast. It took almost a century for Congress, and President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat from Texas, to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964, putting America back on the side of defending the equality before the law of all U.S. Citizens. Then, it took less than a year (less than a week after an intervening atrocity) for President Johnson to call Congress to the special session that would produce the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This piece originally ran as part of a Constituting America program on American history. This piece originally