The ACR Project has demanded that New York State abandon its illegal, unconstitutional policy of rationing access to scarce COVID-19 treatments based on patient race and ethnicity. Under the policy, race and ethnicity dictate allocation of the most effective COVID-19 treatments away from those most at risk. That violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and New York's own Human Rights Law.
Today, the ACR Project submitted a letter to the Denver Public Schools, expressing concern with the "Families of Color Playground Night[s,]" which they system has held over the last several months at at least one of its schools. We warned that this programming appears to violate the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
On behalf of the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, we filed with the Supreme Court this amicus brief, supporting the petition for certiorari before judgment filed by Students for Fair Admissions. The Court should take up the UNC case along with the Harvard one (whose consideration remains pending). They present a once-a-generation chance to correct previous errors, restore equal protection, and rid America of racial discrimination at both private and public colleges and universities.
The ACR Project and its co-counsel Bell Davis Pitt have demanded that Lowe's officers and directors halt its illegal, discriminatory "Making It ... with Lowe's" promotion and undertake a new, non-discriminatory competition whose application process is open to all entrepreneurs without penalty for the race, sex, or gender of applicants.
Corporations listed on NASDAQ – and their shareholders -- face an apparent conflict between their exchange's approved rules and the state and federal laws governing their actions. What are shareholders and nominating committees to do to thread this needle?
SHAREHOLDER ALERT: The ACR Project Investigating Lowe’s Discriminatory Promotion as Fiduciary Breach
On behalf of shareholders, the American Civil Rights Project, a national civil rights organization, is investigating allegations that the officers and directors of Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (NYSE: LOW) have breached their fiduciary duties.
The American Civil Rights Project has been named a nominee [...]
Mistaken Heritage: How a Statutory Misreading Has Denied Congress’s Intended Beneficiaries Protection for Half a Century
When the Voting Rights Act came up for renewal of its pre-clearance mechanism for the second time in 1975, Congress didn't just update its coverage formula and leave the statute in place. It amended the core provisions of the VRA, in relevant part, by adding provisions protecting "language minorities," including "persons who are ... of Spanish heritage." What did that mean in 1975? That question yields a clear answer upon consideration of the historical context, the text itself (supported by contemporaneous usage), Congress's enacted legislative findings, and the relevant legislative history -- those whose native language is Spanish, a disadvantaged group that is not identical with all Hispanics. But the courts have never applied this clear answer. The population Congress sought to protect through the 1975 amendments still largely suffers from the same problems Congress enacted the 1975 amendments to address. Instead, a misreading of the language of the amendments has yielded irrelevant relief to other groups for generations. This piece originally ran in The Federalist Society Review, Vol. 22.
In its current form, the "Making It ... with Lowe's" promotion discriminates based on race, ethnicity, sex, and gender, in violation of both state and Federal law. This threatens the company with potentially serious liability to America's small businesses and the company's officers and directors with potentially serious liability to their shareholders.
Comment on Department of Education’s Potential New Guidance on Nondiscriminatory Administration of School Discipline
Today, the ACR Project submitted a comment in response to the Department of Education’s Request for Information in support of an anticipated change in the Department's guidance on the "nondiscriminatory administration of school discipline." The Department's version of the relevant history was tellingly incomplete, omitting facts important to a proper assessment of both the relevant social science and the state of the law. As the omissions are material, we briefly detail what OCR declined to include in the telling of this story, before turning to the legal infirmities of the guidance the Department seems driven to issue.