Supreme Court Shocks With 9-0 Decision Written By Ketanji Brown ENDING “Reverse Discrimination”

Go to Article

I think my head is going to explode…

The Supreme Court just handed down a 9-0 unanimous ruling, written by Far-Left social justice warrior Ketanji Brown, effectively ENDING “reverse discrimination”.

My head is still spinning!

Is this real life?

Here is a quick summary of what just happened:

  • In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court revived a reverse discrimination lawsuit by a straight woman denied a promotion.

  • Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — a liberal justice — wrote the majority opinion, striking down the higher legal burden for majority-group plaintiffs.

  • Jackson said the law must apply equally, regardless of whether someone is in a minority or majority group.

  • The ruling is shocking to some, as it came from the Court’s most progressive justice, and supports claims often associated with conservatives.

  • The decision eliminates an extra hurdle for white or straight plaintiffs in discrimination cases.

  • Justice Clarence Thomas also slammed the old rule as unconstitutional and race-based.

  • The case now goes back to lower courts for further proceedings.

It’s a tremendous win for common sense and sanity!

I have said for years and probably decades now that “reverse” discrimination is still discrimination!

Shockingly, for decades that has been viewed as a controversial and dangerous opinion, but today the Supreme Court validated that opinion with their own “Opinion” — and they did so unanimously.

Thank goodness there is still some amount of common sense on the Supreme Court, but many are rightly pointing out how far-gone the lower courts are that it even got to this point.  Very true:

Here’s a deeper look and more analysis from CBS News:

Writing for the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that the Supreme Court’s 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.”

Jackson noted that the requirement uniformly subjects all majority-group plaintiffs to “the same, highly specific evidentiary standard in every case.”

Ames sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, after she said she was turned down for a promotion in favor of a gay woman and then demoted and replaced by a gay man. She alleged violations of Title VII, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on race, religion, national origin and sex, which includes sexual orientation. Ames accused the department of discriminating against her on the basis of sexual orientation.

A federal district court ruled for the Ohio Department of Youth Services after finding that it offered “legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons” for passing Ames over for the promotion. The court concluded that Ames’ allegations were insufficient to establish the background circumstances necessary to make an initial case of reverse discrimination.

A plaintiff can clear that bar if they put forward evidence that a member of the relevant minority group made the employment decision at issue, or by presenting statistical evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of a majority group.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision and agreed that Ames failed to satisfy the background circumstances requirement.

Ames appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed in October to review the 6th Circuit’s decision. That appeals court and four others — the 7th, 8th, 10th and D.C. Circuits — still applied the background circumstances standard, while seven others do not.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, criticized the background circumstances rule as “judge-made” and said it is “undoubtedly” contrary to Title VII and likely violates the Constitution.

“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,” Thomas wrote.

He said that the Supreme Court’s decision “obviates the need for courts to engage in the ‘sordid business’” of dividing people by race or other protected traits.

The dispute arrived before the high court as President Trump targeted diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs and practices throughout the federal government and fired federal employees in DEI roles. Large companies, too, dismantled their DEI policies following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision that ended affirmative action in college admissions.



Comment on this Article Via Your Disqus Account