

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Stanley Augustin, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, press@lawyerscommittee.org, 202.662.8327
Shin Inouye, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, inouye@civilrights.org, 202.869.0398
Phoebe Plagens, The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, pplagens@naacpldf.org, 212.965.2786
Marc Banks, The NAACP, dbanks@naacpnet.org
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments that pit Comcast (CMCSA), America's biggest cable provider, against National Association of African American-Owned Media and Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc., and more importantly one of the Nation's oldest anti-discimination statutes, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments that pit Comcast (CMCSA), America's biggest cable provider, against National Association of African American-Owned Media and Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc., and more importantly one of the Nation's oldest anti-discimination statutes, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Section 1981 prohibits intentional race discrimination in contracting, and protects African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities from discrimination in the workplace and marketplace. The law applies to all private and public actors and prohibits retaliation. It has been one of the cornerstones of the oldest and most storied pieces of civil rights laws for over 150 years.
Comcast is asking the Supreme Court to rule that intentional race discrimination claims brought under Section 1981 should be dismissed if plaintiffs are unable to show that race was the reason behind a discriminatory action, as opposed to a reason.
Civil rights leaders urge the Supreme Court to affirm the lower court's ruling that intentional race discrimination claims under Section 1981 are viable if the plaintiff is able to show that race played a role in the challenged discriminatory decisions. A ruling by the Supreme Court requiring plaintiffs to prove that race was the but for reason of a discriminatory decision would make it nearly impossible for litigants to prevail in their cases, and would result in meritorious cases being dismissed at the earliest stages of litigation.
Leaders representing the Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under law, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), NAACP, and The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, submitted "friend of the court" briefs in the case pending before the Supreme Court, Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media and Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc.
"This is the most important racial justice case that will be heard by the Supreme Court this term," said Kristen Clarke, president & executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "An adverse ruling by the Court stands to impose a burdensome pleading standard in Section 1981 cases that would shut the courthouse door on victims of discrimination all across the country. Section 1981 is one of the oldest civil rights statutes that provides core protection from groups otherwise beyond the reach of civil rights statutes including independent contractors and gig economy workers. The Court should reject this challenge to help ensure that victims of discrimination get their day in court and have the opportunity to be heard."
"Section 1981 is one of our nation's oldest civil rights laws, specifically intended to end racial discrimination in contracting," said Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. "Every person, no matter who they are or what their race, should have fair and equitable access to opportunity and economic mobility. The Supreme Court must not weaken the vital protections of this historic civil rights statute."
"All eyes should be on this critical case," said Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. "An adverse decision by the Supreme Court could imperil the integrity of section 1981 as a tool for protecting the full economic and legal rights of Black people."
"The case that sits before the Supreme Court is one of monumental importance to the protection and continuation of Black businesses and contractors, said Derrick Johnson," President and CEO, NAACP. "The attempt to turn back the clock on one of the most vital civil rights protections is a grave threat to the very fabric of the nation -- we will continue to fight so that section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 is preserved for generations to come."
Background
The case contends that both Comcast and Charter Communications violated Section 1981 after minority-owned Entertainment Studios attempted have the two cable systems carry its networks and were denied.
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and NAACP LDF argue in their briefs that the position taken by Comcast is inconsistent with the plain text of Section 1981, and would frustrate the fundamental purpose of the provision--to place African Americans on equal footing as white citizens in our nation's economy. Comcast urges the Supreme Court to hold that Section 1981 requires "but-for" causation if there are non-racial justifications, and that the telecom company's claim should be dismissed without discovery or trial. If successful, Comcast's arguments would, in many cases, impose an impossible pleading burden on victims of discrimination and prevent them from vindicating meritorious claims.
The Lawyers' Committee brief is joined by The Leadership Conference, NAACP and over 20 other organizations and can be read here. The NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund's brief is joined by 10 other organizations and can be read here.
Listen to the audio from our press call for the filing of the briefs here
The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar's leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity - work that continues to be vital today.
(202) 662-8600One homeless advocacy group said the bill, which would require homeless people to perform unpaid labor to pay for involuntary treatment, "evokes debtor’s prisons, convict leasing, and the ugliest day of Jim Crow."
The Louisiana House of Representatives voted this week to pass what the National Homelessness Law Center says is "one of the cruelest anti-homeless bills in the country."
Like many other anti-homeless bills being advanced around the country following a 2024 Supreme Court decision allowing states and cities to criminalize homelessness, House Bill 211, which passed by a vote of 70-28, makes unauthorized sleeping in public spaces a crime.
It is punishable by a fine of up to $500, imprisonment for up to six months, or both. Repeat offenders could face one to two years in prison with hard labor and a $1,000 fine.
The bill, which will now advance to the GOP-controlled state Senate, has been nicknamed the "Streets to Success Act" because, according to its sponsor, state Rep. Debbie Villio (R-79), the goal is not to jail homeless people but to "connect them to service providers."
Those who are convicted of sleeping outdoors could be given the option to avoid jail time by instead entering into a mandatory treatment program for at least 12 months. The bill authorizes local governments to set up semi-permanent camps in remote areas, where defendants would be required to stay and receive treatment.
The bill requires homeless defendants to pay “all or part of the cost of the treatment program to which he is assigned," a steep cost for many, as the average cost for residential drug and alcohol rehab treatment in Louisiana is more than $4,400 per week, according to the addiction referral service directory Addicted.org.
According to the bill, those who cannot afford this steep cost would be required to perform unpaid labor for the state or a local community center in lieu of payment.
Bill Quigley, director of the Gillis Long Poverty Law Center at Loyola University New Orleans, called the bill's entire premise "a farce."
"If people had the resources to pay for housing and physical and/or mental health services, they would not be on the street," he told Common Dreams.
He described it as a "cruel theater of the absurd" based on "the lie that people choose to be homeless." The law, he said, "assumes our communities have plenty of affordable apartments and lots of mental and physical health services available."
In reality, he said, these services are chronically underfunded, and the city would need to build about 55,000 more affordable rental units to provide enough housing for its rent-burdened population.
Though it is not uncommon for homeless people to struggle with mental health or substance use issues, increases in the cost of housing have been shown to have a direct relationship with increasing homelessness.
Homelessness in New Orleans dropped considerably in the years following the Covid-19 pandemic, when Congress provided permanent housing subsidies for those in need. But after those funds have dried up, homelessness in the city shot up higher than before the pandemic, a study by the homelessness nonprofit UNITY of Greater New Orleans found in 2024.
New Orleans City Councilmember Lesli Harris (D), who has opposed the bill, pointed to the success of the city's Home for Good program, which took a "Housing First" approach to homelessness, providing rental subsidies and allowing people to move straight from encampments into housing without requirements that they obtain treatment.
According to a May 2025 report, the program had moved 1,133 people off the streets and into supportive housing and allowed eight homeless encampments to close.
"Through our Home for Good program, we house an individual for roughly $21,844 per year. By comparison, jailing that same person costs an average of $51,000—and failing to act at all can cost up to $55,000 in emergency room visits and crisis rehousing," Harris said. "HB 211 would steer Louisiana toward the most expensive option while producing no lasting housing, no services, and no real path forward for the people involved."
Harris has also decried the bill's creation of what she called "internment camps" for treatment. The bill's text requires these facilities to be far away from downtown and other high-value neighborhoods, which she said separates those trying to rebuild their lives from work, public transit, and other critical services, and further isolates them from society.
Since the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson, which allowed cities to enforce public-camping bans against unhoused people even when shelter is unavailable, around two dozen states and hundreds of municipalities have passed various measures criminalizing poverty.
The homeless advocacy group Housing Not Handcuffs points out that many of the bills were written by the Cicero Institute, a far-right think tank with heavy backing from billionaire tech investors that now has deep influence over the housing policy of President Donald Trump, who has taken a hacksaw to funding for public housing programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Housing Not Handcuffs said Louisiana's bill, which would almost certainly be signed by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry if passed by the state Senate, "is an extreme take on the already extreme copy-paste legislation" peddled by Cicero.
"This bill forces homeless people charged with a crime to make the false choice between jail or at least one year of forced treatment," the group said. "Louisiana has a long history—and present—of chain gangs, prison labor, and entrenched white supremacy. This bill clearly evokes debtor’s prisons, convict leasing, and the ugliest day of Jim Crow."
UN experts have said Israel's "destruction of urban and village housing that displaced persons would have returned to, is consistent with the pattern of domicide that was initiated during the genocide in Gaza."
Despite a ceasefire announced Friday, after US President Donald Trump said Israel was "PROHIBITED" from continuing to strike Lebanon, Israel continued to level villages and homes across southern Lebanon from Friday into Saturday in what has been described as a continuation of its "Gaza tactics."
Just as it did in Gaza, Israeli Army Radio announced Friday night that Israel had established a "yellow line" in southern Lebanon about 10 kilometers north of the Israeli border, effectively allowing Israel to occupy about 10% of Lebanese territory and maintain control of 55 towns and villages.
According to a report by Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research, Israeli forces have been destroying more than 1,000 homes per day since March 2, sometimes wiping out entire villages across southern Lebanon.
The campaign escalated later in the month after Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz ordered the military to "accelerate the destruction of Lebanese homes" near the Israeli border based on the "model in Gaza," where Israel has destroyed around 90% of all infrastructure and left most of the population sheltering in tents.
Israel has described this as an effort to destroy Hezbollah infrastructure. But the razing of entire villages has often appeared indiscriminate, and numerous attacks have targeted or damaged schools, hospitals, and other nonmilitary infrastructure. More than 40,000 homes have reportedly been destroyed or damaged.
Demolitions and land-clearing operations have continued after Friday's ceasefire, according to reporters on the ground in Lebanon for Al Jazeera. Israeli artillery also reportedly shelled areas around Beit Lif, al-Qantara, and Toul.
On Friday, Israel warned tens of thousands of displaced Lebanese civilians in southern Lebanon not to return to their homes despite the ceasefire, although some have begun to make the trek anyway. Many have found their former homes reduced to rubble.
“There’s destruction, and it’s unlivable," said one resident who was displaced from his home in Nabatieh. "We’re taking our things and leaving again."
Israel said Saturday that it had also carried out new airstrikes in southern Lebanon against people who approached the newly established yellow line. The Israeli military claimed that individuals crossed from north of the line toward Israeli troops, prompting "precise strikes" by air and ground forces against them.
An Israeli military statement described those approaching as "terrorists" who violated the ceasefire and said it carried out the strikes in "self-defense against threats." However, it did not specify what threat those approaching the line posed.
Previous attacks that Israel has said were directed at Hezbollah fighters have devastated civilian areas in southern Lebanon, as well as Beirut and its surrounding suburbs.
According to Lebanon’s Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between military and civilian casualties, more than 2,167 people have been killed since Israel renewed its attacks in Lebanon on March 2.
In Gaza, despite a ceasefire, nearly 100 Palestinians have been killed near the yellow line since it was established in October 2025. Those killed have included at least 36 women, children, and elderly people, according to TRT World.
On Wednesday, a group of United Nations experts denounced what they called Israel's "illegal aggression and indiscriminate bombing campaign" aimed at occupying land in violation of the UN Charter.
“The issuance of blanket evacuation orders, combined with the destruction of urban and village housing that displaced persons would have returned to, is consistent with the pattern of domicide that was initiated during the genocide in Gaza,” they warned.
On Saturday, a group of peacekeepers with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon also came under attack, resulting in the death of a French soldier. Lebanon's Foreign Ministry condemned the attack and pledged to identify the "perpetrators."
UN peacekeepers and French officials have said the attack was most likely carried out by Hezbollah, but Hezbollah has denied responsibility.
Israel's continued attacks on Lebanon also threaten to derail not only its ceasefire with Lebanon but also the US ceasefire with Iran.
After the announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon on Friday, Iran briefly reopened the Strait of Hormuz to unrestricted travel. But on Saturday, following reports of Israel's violations of the ceasefire, it was once again closed.
While Iranian officials said the proximate reason for the closure was the continuation of US President Donald Trump's blockade of the strait, they have also indicated that they want Israel to stop attacking Lebanon as part of the ceasefire.
Trump's recent actions have convinced Tehran that the US is not "a trustworthy partner for any kind of deal," according to one Iranian professor.
The ceasefire between the US and Iran is in grave peril after Iran announced on Saturday that, in response to the continued US blockade, it would once again impose travel restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz after briefly reopening it on Friday.
Iran has used the strait—through which about 20% of the world's oil passes—as a chokepoint on Western commerce in response to the illegal US-Israeli war launched in February, and it has been the linchpin of the two-week ceasefire between the two sides, which is scheduled to end Wednesday.
Tehran announced Friday that the strait was "completely open" again in response to a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, which had taken effect. That agreement is also already falling apart following a slew of apparent violations by Israel, which has continued shelling southern Lebanon and demolishing homes even as displaced civilians return.
Iranian officials said they opted to reimpose their blockade of the strait because they believe that by continuing its own naval blockade of Iranian ports and vessels, which began over the past weekend, the US is not upholding its end of the deal.
According to a social media post from US Central Command on Saturday, the US military has already turned around at least 23 ships near the strait since its blockade began on April 13.
US President Donald Trump claimed Friday that Iran had agreed to reopen the strait without conditions, but that the US blockade would “remain in full force” until a broader deal was reached surrounding Iran's nuclear program.
But Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh said during a panel Saturday that "That is not the term we agreed on."
Iran's military headquarters later issued a formal statement declaring that it would begin limiting travel through the strait.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran, following previous agreements met in the negotiations conducted in good faith, agreed to manage the passage of a limited number of oil and commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz," the statement said. "Unfortunately, the Americans, with their repeated breaches of trust that are part of their history, continue their acts of piracy and maritime theft under the pretext of a so-called blockade."
"This strategic waterway is under strict management and control by the armed forces," it continued. "As long as the United States does not end the complete freedom of movement for vessels from Iran to their destinations and back, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will remain under strict control and will remain as it was before.”
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) gunboats later opened fire on an oil tanker traveling through the strait on Saturday. No injuries were reported.
As Al Jazeera reporter Ali Hashem described, talks between the US and Iran have been brought "back to square one."
The gap appears increasingly unlikely to be bridged by Wednesday, as Trump continues to demand that Iran allow the US to remove all its enriched uranium, which Iran has said is a nonstarter.
US and Israeli strikes in Iran have already killed more than 1,700 civilians, according to the US-based Human Rights Activist News Agency, and more than 3 million Iranians have been displaced since the war began, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency.
Trump said Friday that perhaps he "won't extend" the ceasefire and that "the blockade is going to remain. If an agreement is not reached by Wednesday, he said, "unfortunately, we'll have to start dropping bombs again."
The president said that Iran "got a little cute" on Saturday by closing the strait again, but said Iran "can't blackmail us."
Shutting the waterway has, however, proven to be one of Iran's most effective points of leverage against the US. It has caused gas prices to soar above $4 and inflation to ripple through the entire Western economy, further tanking Trump's already grim approval ratings as the US midterm elections approach.
Jennifer Parker, an adjunct fellow in naval studies at the University of New South Wales, told Al Jazeera that the US blockade of the strait does not have the ability to cripple Iran in the same way Iran can cripple the US.
“It is not the US blockade on Iranian ports that is impacting the majority of shipping going through that strait. It is the attacks the Iranian navy and IRGC have undertaken on civilian ships,” she said. "To solve the problem in the Strait of Hormuz, there either needs to be an agreement for Iran to stop attacking vessels, or a forcible military intervention that stops them from attacking vessels, and then general reassurance across the strait that it is clear of mines and that if the IRGC start trying to attack merchant ships, they will be defended... We are a long way from all of that.”
Iranian professor Mostafa Khoshcheshm said that Trump's contradictory statements surrounding the ceasefire have convinced Tehran that the United States is not "a trustworthy partner for any kind of deal," and that, as Trump continues to behave erratically, "Iran will continue the war.”
He told Al Jazeera: "Iran believes it has the upper hand and that this must be established in any future confrontation."