ACR Project Challenges Unconstitutional Guaranteed Income Programs, with Suit against CA HHS, SF, SF USD, and UC Affiliates

The ACR Project, for the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation and individual San Francisco taxpayers, has sued California's Health and Human Services Agency, San Francisco, San Francisco USD, and both UC Berkeley and San Francisco, challenging a set of guarantied income programs, which violate the Constitutions of California and the United States (as well as Title VI).

2023-06-01T12:33:19-05:00June 1st, 2023|Blog, Filings and Cases|

Joint Submission by ACR Project and Manhattan Institute of Comment on Department of Education’s Proposed Change to Title IX Regulation Governing Men’s and Women’s Sports

Today, the ACR Project and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research jointly submitted a comment to the U.S. Department of Education, raising numerous potentially fatal defects in the Department's proposed alteration of the regulation governing the men's and women's athletic programs run by federal funding recipients.

2023-05-12T11:40:36-05:00May 12th, 2023|Blog, Submissions|

ACR Project Files Amicus Brief with SCOWA in Redistricting Case

The ACR Project filed an amicus brief, asking the SCOWA to recognize the clear meaning of the Voting Rights Act (and the WVRA), to prevent the self-appointed, English-speaking spokespeople for all "Hispanics" who brought the case from misappropriating the legal protections of their Spanish-speaking relations, and, so, to start the process of assuring that Congress's 1975 VRA amendments actually protect that at-risk population

2023-03-28T13:00:18-05:00March 28th, 2023|Filings and Cases|

ACR Project Files Amicus Brief at 6th Circuit Opposing Administration’s Efforts to Gut Injunction Barring Federal Imposition of Uniform Bathroom, Locker Room, and Shower Policies Across All Schools and Employers

Today, we submitted an amicus brief to the 6th Circuit, asking the Court of Appeals to affirm the trial court's injunction barring the Biden Administration from implementing faulty "guidance" that the Department of Education and the Chairman of the EEOC had issued to their regulated communities. Those "guidance" documents misread Title IX and Title VII (as well as the Supreme Court's Bostock decision), to require all schools (that receive federal funding) and all employers to allow transgender individuals to use the single-sex bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers provided for the gender with which those individuals identify. Our brief explains how neither the statutes, nor Bostock, do any such thing.

2023-01-31T17:41:32-06:00January 31st, 2023|Blog, Filings and Cases|

Open Letter for Shareholder to Officers and Directors of Levi Strauss & Co.

Today, on behalf of a concerned Levi's shareholder, the ACR Project demanded that the company publicly retract its illegal, discriminatory training policies. Levi's has chosen to make available to its employees training programs defined by the immutable characteristics of participants (excluding all employees from participation unless they are of -- respectively -- the right race, ethnicity, or sex).  But an employer discriminating in the training it makes available based on race, national origin, and sex violates longstanding federal and state laws.

2022-09-19T15:50:29-05:00September 19th, 2022|Submissions|

Open Letter for Shareholders to Officers and Directors of Pfizer, Inc.

Today, on behalf of concerned Pfizer shareholders, the ACR Project demanded that the company publicly retract a set of illegal, discriminatory policies. Those policies inject race, ethnicity, and sex into every level of Pfizer's hiring and promotions, ranging from its summer internships to its top executives and directors. These policies -- admitted on Pfizer's webpage -- violate state and federal laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and a host of state laws, including those of New York (where Pfizer headquarters) and Delaware (where it incorporated).

2022-09-19T15:54:05-05:00September 19th, 2022|Submissions|

Break Up the ESG Investing Giants

Three of the largest investment shops in the U.S.—BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street—have long used their dominance in passive-investment funds to force corporations to comply with their preferred set of environmental, social and governance policies. Why are the Big Three pursuing these policies in lockstep? Why have no institutions in the financial-services industry except one—the recently launched Strive Asset Management—opted to place the investor first, by giving priority to profit over social issues? The answer reads like a punch line: The Big Three own each other and their market competitors. The Clayton Act was made for situations like this.

2022-11-09T21:50:06-06:00August 31st, 2022|Blog|
Go to Top