The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision on Thursday involving an Ohio woman who alleges reverse discrimination. The decision could become a key victory in ongoing ideological wars against diversity, equality, and inclusion initiatives.

In a 9-0 decision that, believe it or not, was penned by left-leaning Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the highest court in the land ruled that Marlean Ames was not required to meet a “higher burden of proof to prove that she was discriminated against despite being part of a ‘majority’ group,” the New York Post said.

Ames filed a lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services in November 2020. In the suit, she made allegations that she was wrongfully passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian. This individual, she claims, was not qualified for the position, and Ames was later demoted and then replaced by a gay man. This individual was also not qualified for the job, she said.

Ames’s complaint will now be sent back to the lower courts for review.

“The ruling from the Supreme Court makes it easier to pursue claims of reverse discrimination in 20 states and the District of Columbia that are covered by federal courts of appeals that still applied the standard,” CBS News reported.

In the decision, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that SCOTUS’ case law “makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. … The ‘background circumstances’ rule flouts that basic principle.”

She also pointed out that the requirement places all majority-group plaintiffs under “the same, highly specific evidentiary standard in every case.”

A federal district court had previously ruled in favor of the Ohio Department of Youth Services after it found that it offered “legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons” for not giving Ames the promotion.

The court then determined that Ames’ accusations didn’t meet the background circumstances necessary to establish a case of reverse discrimination. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit backed the district court’s ruling and stood with them in agreement that Ames did not meet the requirement for background circumstances.

Ames then turned to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case last October.

“Courts with this rule have enshrined into Title VII’s anti-discrimination law an explicitly race-based preference: White plaintiffs must prove the existence of background circumstances, while nonwhite plaintiffs need not do so,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion.