

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) 662-8600"Republicans shamefully voted it down—demonstrating once again that they have never cared about law and order or keeping our communities safe," said the congresswoman.
Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley told her fellow members of the US House Oversight Committee on Wednesday that a motion she was introducing during a hearing was "pretty straightforward": The committee, she said, should conduct oversight regarding a federal agent's fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good, a woman in Minneapolis who was killed in her car earlier in the day.
But the motion failed, with every Republican on the panel voting against it.
Pressley (D-Mass.) introduced the motion during a hearing regarding a fraud scandal in the state, hours after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot Good, who was in the driver's seat of her car as multiple officers approached her. Good was acting as a legal observer, according to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), monitoring ICE actions following the Trump administration's surge of federal agents into Minnesota, in part to target members of the Somali community.
Footage of the shooting shows an officer trying to open the car door and the driver turning the wheel before starting to drive forward. An agent who had approached the driver-side bumper draws his gun and shoots the driver multiple times.
Despite what is shown in the widely available video, President Donald Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Vice President JD Vance were quick to place blame on Good. Trump said she “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over” the ICE agent, while Noem said Good had committed an "act of domestic terrorism."
Pressley called on the congressional committee to investigate the case.
"Since this committee is responsible for oversight of federal law enforcement, we must investigate," she said. "This subpoena will get to the truth, and it should have bipartisan support."
Pressley condemned her GOP colleagues for blocking the effort to get to the bottom of what happened in Minneapolis, which has also been described by multiple eyewitnesses who dispute the Trump administration's narrative.
“DHS’ claim that an agent shot in self-defense is a bold-faced lie and the video footage is damning," said Pressley. "But after I moved to subpoena all records and footage related to this killing, Republicans shamefully voted it down—demonstrating once again that they have never cared about law and order or keeping our communities safe.
“What happened today is a despicable consequence of Donald Trump’s campaign of terror, fear, and demonization of vulnerable communities and we cannot allow it to be normalized in America," said Pressley. "I demand a thorough and independent investigation into this tragedy so the victim, her loved ones, and the public get the accountability and transparency they deserve. It’s time for the Trump administration to end its cruel, unlawful mass deportation agenda once and for all.”
The ACLU on Wednesday noted that Good was killed as Congress negotiates the Department of Homeland Security's budget for the coming year, months after lawmakers voted to add "an unprecedented $170 billion to the Trump administration’s already massive budget for immigration enforcement."
“For months, the Trump administration has been deploying reckless, heavily armed agents into our communities and encouraging them to commit horrifying abuses with impunity, and, today, we are seeing the devastating and predictable consequences,” said Naureen Shah, director of policy and government affairs at ACLU. “Congress must rein ICE in before what happened in Minneapolis today happens somewhere else tomorrow. That means, at a minimum, opposing a Homeland Security budget that supports the growing lawlessness of this agency.”
"Trump cutting ties with the world’s oldest climate treaty is another despicable effort to let corporate fossil fuel interests run our government."
President Donald Trump on Wednesday withdrew the United States from dozens of international treaties and organizations aimed at promoting cooperation on the world's most pressing issues, including human rights and the worsening climate emergency.
Among the treaties Trump ditched via a legally dubious executive order was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), making the US—the world's largest historical emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gases—the first country to abandon the landmark agreement.
The US Senate ratified the convention in 1992 by unanimous consent, but lawmakers have repeatedly failed to assert their constitutional authority to stop presidents from unilaterally withdrawing from global treaties.
Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement that "Trump cutting ties with the world’s oldest climate treaty is another despicable effort to let corporate fossil fuel interests run our government."
"Given deeply polarized US politics, it’s going to be nearly impossible for the U.S. to rejoin the UNFCCC with a two-thirds majority vote. Letting this lawless move stand could shut the US out of climate diplomacy forever," Su warned. "Withdrawing from the world’s leading climate, biodiversity, and scientific institutions threatens all life on Earth."
Trump also pulled the US out of the International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the UN International Law Commission, the UN Democracy Fund, UN Oceans, and dozens of other global bodies, deeming them "contrary to the interests of the United States."
The president's move came as he continued to steamroll domestic and international law with an illegal assault on Venezuela and threats to seize Greenland with military force, among other grave abuses.
Below is the full list of international organizations that Trump abandoned with the stroke of a pen:
(a) Non-United Nations Organizations:
(i) 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact;
(ii) Colombo Plan Council;
(iii) Commission for Environmental Cooperation;
(iv) Education Cannot Wait;
(v) European Centre of Excellence for Countering
Hybrid Threats;
(vi) Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories;
(vii) Freedom Online Coalition;
(viii) Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund;
(ix) Global Counterterrorism Forum;
(x) Global Forum on Cyber Expertise;
(xi) Global Forum on Migration and Development;
(xii) Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research;
(xiii) Intergovernmental Forum onMining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development;
(xiv) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
(xv) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services;
(xvi) International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property;
(xvii) International Cotton Advisory Committee;
(xviii) International Development Law Organization;
(xix) International Energy Forum;
(xx) International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies;
(xxi) International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance;
(xxii) International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law;
(xxiii) International Lead and Zinc Study Group;
(xxiv) InternationalRenewable Energy Agency;
(xxv) International Solar Alliance;
(xxvi) International Tropical Timber Organization;
(xxvii) International Union for Conservation of Nature;
(xxviii) Pan American Institute of Geography and History;
(xxix) Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation;
(xxx) Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combatting Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia;
(xxxi) Regional Cooperation Council;
(xxxii) Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century;
(xxxiii)Science and Technology Center in Ukraine;
(xxxiv) Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme; and
(xxxv) Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
(b) United Nations (UN) Organizations:
(i) Department of Economic and Social Affairs;
(ii) UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) — Economic Commission forAfrica;
(iii) ECOSOC — Economic Commission forLatin America and the Caribbean;
(iv) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific;
(v) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia;
(vi) International Law Commission;
(vii) International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals;
(viii) InternationalTrade Centre;
(ix) Office of the Special Adviser on Africa;
(x) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General forChildren in Armed Conflict;
(xi) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict;
(xii) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children;
(xiii) Peacebuilding Commission;
(xiv) Peacebuilding Fund;
(xv) Permanent Forum on People of African Descent;
(xvi) UN Alliance of Civilizations;
(xvii) UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions fromDeforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries;
(xviii) UN Conference on Trade and Development;
(xix) UN Democracy Fund;
(xx) UN Energy;
(xxi) UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women;
(xxii) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change;
(xxiii) UN Human Settlements Programme;
(xxiv) UN Institute for Training and Research;
(xxv) UN Oceans;
(xxvi) UN Population Fund;
(xxvii) UN Register of Conventional Arms;
(xxviii) UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination;
(xxix) UN System Staff College;
(xxx) UNWater; and
(xxxi) UN University.
Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Trump's withdrawal from the world's bedrock climate treaty marks "a new low and yet another sign that this authoritarian, anti-science administration is determined to sacrifice people’s well-being and destabilize global cooperation."
"Withdrawal from the global climate convention will only serve to further isolate the United States and diminish its standing in the world following a spate of deplorable actions that have already sent our nation’s credibility plummeting, jeopardized ties with some of our closest historical allies, and made the world far more unsafe," said Cleetus. "This administration remains cruelly indifferent to the unassailable facts on climate while pandering to fossil fuel polluters.”
"Say it once. Say it twice. We will not put up with ICE," Minnesotans chanted at the site of the shooting.
Protests broke out in Minnesota and beyond on Wednesday after a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fatally shot a Minneapolis woman identified by her mother as Renee Nicole Good.
Good's mother, Donna Ganger, told the Minnesota Star Tribune that the family was notified of her death Wednesday morning. Good was a 37-year-old US citizen, Minneapolis resident, and mother.
As the newspaper reported:
"That's so stupid" that she was killed, Ganger said, after learning some of the circumstances from a reporter. "She was probably terrified."
Ganger said her daughter is "not part of anything like that at all," referring to protesters challenging ICE agents.
"Renee was one of the kindest people I've ever known," she said. "She was extremely compassionate. She's taken care of people all her life. She was loving, forgiving, and affectionate. She was an amazing human being."
The deadly shooting came shortly after President Donald Trump sent over 2,000 federal agents to the Twin Cities, similar to other invasions of Democrat-led US communities by immigration teams carrying out the Republican's mass deportation agenda.
Trump and the US Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, have claimed that the woman was trying to run over the agent with her vehicle, which DHS called "an act of domestic terrorism," but videos circulating online and witness accounts to reporters have undermined those statements.
"They are already trying to spin this as an action of self-defense. Having seen the video... myself, I want to tell everybody directly, that is bullshit," said Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. "This was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying—getting killed."
The Democratic mayor also told ICE to "get the fuck out of Minneapolis," a sentiment shared by various politicians and residents.
The federal agent shot Good on Portland Avenue, where protesters remained "long after ICE agents left, chanting and yelling at law enforcement officers as they set up metal barriers around the scene," according to the Star Tribune. "Law enforcement closed off several blocks of Portland Avenue as hundreds gathered at the scene of the shooting throughout the early afternoon. Dozens of local police watched from the street, and a crew of state troopers in fluorescent green showed up shortly before 1:30 pm."
As CNN reported, some protesters at the scene threw snowballs at law enforcement. Later Wednesday, the network detailed, residents and activists held "a vigil around a makeshift shrine of flowers and candles on a patch of snow."
"Say it once. Say it twice. We will not put up with ICE," vigil attendees chanted. They also chanted the victim's name.
In Minneapolis, protesters also gathered outside the Hennepin County Courthouse and chanted, "ICE out now!"
Good's killing has also drawn demonstrations and denunciations beyond Minnesota, including at Foley Square in Manhattan—which, as WABC noted, "sits between the federal courthouse and 26 Federal Plaza," which is DHS headquarters in New York City.
NYC's newly inaugurated democratic socialist mayor, Zohran Mamdani, said that "the news coming out of Minneapolis is horrific. This is one part that has been a year full of cruelty, and we know that when ICE agents attack immigrants, they attack every one of us across this country."
"This is a city and will always be a city that stands up for immigrants across the five boroughs," Mamdani said of New York, pledging that "we are going to adhere to" local sanctuary city policies.
There were also multiple protests planned for the Chicago area, which was recently targeted by Trump's immigration agents.
"Today, the Little Village Community Council, alongside community members, faith leaders, and allies, gathers in solidarity and grief to denounce the killing of a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis, an innocent US citizen whose life was taken during an encounter involving ICE agents," said the council's president, Baltazar Enriquez, in a statement.
"We are outraged," Enriquez added. "Today's gathering includes candles, prayers, and support from the faith community, honoring the life that was lost and all families harmed by unjust enforcement practices. We call on the people of Chicago to stand together—to demand justice, to protect one another, and to insist on a nation where no one is killed for existing, for migrating, or for being brown."
Little Village was among the Chicago neighborhoods stormed by federal immigration agents last year. Others include Brighton Park, where a Border Patrol agent shot and injured a woman, and suburban Franklin Park, where an ICE agent shot and killed Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez.
Democratic members of Congress from coast to coast—including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) and Eric Swalwell (Calif.)—condemned Good's killing as "murder" and demanded that the agent be prosecuted.
"ICE shouldn't be allowed to act with impunity after shooting and killing a woman in Minneapolis," said US Sen. Elizabeth Warren. (D-Mass.) "This rogue agency's escalating presence brings more and more danger to our communities. Donald Trump and ICE must be reined in by Congress and the courts before more people get hurt."
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said that "it is clear from that video that an ICE federal agent just shot a woman four times in cold blood. Abolish ICE now."
Tlaib later added that "an ICE agent fired multiple shots at Renee Nicole Good, murdering her at point blank range."
A fellow progressive in the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), "just offered a subpoena in the Oversight Committee for all information from DHS related to her murder today in Minneapolis," Tlaib noted. "Republicans blocked it. We need answers."