November, 11 2019, 11:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
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
As Arguments Begin, Civil Rights Leaders Urge Supreme Court to Uphold One of the Nation's Oldest Anti-Discrimination Statutes
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.
WASHINGTON
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) 662-8600LATEST NEWS
Trump Pick to Replace Lina Khan Vowed to End 'War on Mergers'
"Andrew Ferguson is a corporate shill who opposes banning noncompetes, opposes banning junk fees, and opposes enforcing the Anti-Merger Act," said one antitrust attorney.
Dec 11, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the Federal Trade Commission vowed in his job pitch to end current chair Lina Khan's "war on mergers," a signal to an eager corporate America that the incoming administration intends to be far more lax on antitrust enforcement.
Andrew Ferguson was initially nominated by President Joe Biden to serve as a Republican commissioner on the bipartisan FTC, and his elevation to chair of the commission will not require Senate confirmation.
In a one-page document obtained by Punchbowl, Ferguson—who previously worked as chief counsel to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—pitched himself to Trump's team as the "pro-innovation choice" with "impeccable legal credentials" and "proven loyalty" to the president-elect.
Ferguson's top agenda priority, according to the document, is to "reverse Lina Khan's anti-business agenda" by rolling back "burdensome regulations," stopping her "war on mergers," halting the agency's "attempt to become an AI regulator," and ditching "novel and legally dubious consumer protection cases."
Trump announced Ferguson as the incoming administration's FTC chair as judges in Oregon and Washington state
blocked the proposed merger of Kroger and Albertsons, decisions that one antitrust advocate called a "fantastic culmination of the FTC's work to protect consumers and workers."
According to a recent
report by the American Economic Liberties Project, the Biden administration "brought to trial four times as many billion-dollar merger challenges as Trump-Pence or Obama-Biden enforcers did," thanks to "strong leaders at the FTC" and the Justice Department's Antitrust Division.
In a letter to Ferguson following Trump's announcement on Tuesday, FTC Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter wrote that the document obtained and published by Punchbowl "raises questions" about his priorities at the agency mainly "because of what is not in it."
"Americans pay more for healthcare than anyone else in the developed world, yet they die younger," they wrote. "Medical bills bankrupt people. In fact, this is the main reason Americans go bankrupt. But the document does not mention the cost of healthcare or prescription medicine."
"If there was one takeaway from the election, it was that groceries are too expensive. So is gas," the commissioners continued. "Yet the document does not mention groceries, gas, or the cost of living. While you have said we're entering the 'most pro-worker administration in history,' the document does not mention labor, either. Americans are losing billions of dollars to fraud. Fraudsters are so brazen that they impersonate sitting FTC commissioners to steal money from retirees. The word 'fraud' does not appear in the document."
"The document does propose allowing more mergers, firing civil servants, and fighting something called 'the trans agenda,'" they added. "Is all of that more important than the cost of healthcare and groceries and gasoline? Or fighting fraud?"
As an FTC commissioner, Ferguson voted against rules banning anti-worker noncompete agreements and making it easier for consumers to cancel subscriptions. Ferguson was also the only FTC member to oppose an expansion of a rule to protect consumers from tech support scams that disproportionately impact older Americans.
"Andrew Ferguson is a corporate shill who opposes banning noncompetes, opposes banning junk fees, and opposes enforcing the Anti-Merger Act," said Basel Musharbash, principal attorney at Antimonopoly Counsel. "Appointing him to chair the FTC is an affront to the antitrust laws and a gift to the oligarchs and monopolies bleeding this country dry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Once Again, Tom Cotton Blocks Bill to Shield Journalists From Betraying Sources
Responding to the GOP senator's latest thwarting of the PRESS Act, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden vowed to "keep trying to get this bill across the finish line" before Republicans take control of the Senate next month.
Dec 10, 2024
Republican U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas on Tuesday again blocked the passage of House-approved bipartisan legislation meant to shield journalists and telecommunications companies from being compelled to disclose sources and other information to federal authorities.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) brought the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying (PRESS) Act—which would prohibit the federal government from forcing journalists and telecom companies to disclose certain information, with exceptions for terroristic or violent threats—for a unanimous consent vote.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued Tuesday that passing the PRESS Act is "more important now than ever before when we've heard some in the previous administration talk about going after the press in one way or another," a reference to Republican President-elect Donald Trump's threats to jail journalists who refuse to reveal the sources of leaks. Trump, who has referred to the press as the "enemy of the people," repeatedly urged Senate Republicans to "kill this bill."
Cotton, who blocked a vote on the legislation in December 2022, again objected to the bill, a move that thwarted its speedy passage. The Republican called the legislation a "threat to national security" and "the biggest giveaway to the liberal press in American history."
The advocacy group Defending Rights and Dissent lamented that "Congress has abdicated their responsibility to take substantive steps to protect the constitutional right to a free press."
However, Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, noted ways in which Senate Democrats can still pass the PRESS Act before Republicans gain control of the upper chamber next month:
Senate Democrats had all year to move this bipartisan bill and now time is running out. Leader Schumer needs to get the PRESS Act into law—whether by attaching it to a year-end legislative package or bringing it to the floor on its own—even if it means shortening lawmakers' holiday break. Hopefully, today was a preview of more meaningful action to come.
Responding to Tuesday's setback, Wyden vowed, "I'm not taking my foot off the gas."
"I'll keep trying to get this bill across the finish line to write much-needed protections for journalists and their sources into black letter law," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judges Block Kroger-Albertsons Merger in 'Win for Farmers, Workers, and Consumers'
"We applaud the FTC for securing one of the most significant victories in modern antitrust enforcement," said one advocate.
Dec 10, 2024
Antitrust advocates on Tuesday welcomed a pair of court rulings against the proposed merger of grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons, which was challenged by Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and multiple state attorneys general.
"The FTC, along with our state partners, scored a major victory for the American people, successfully blocking Kroger's acquisition of Albertsons," said Henry Liu, director of the commission's Bureau of Competition, in a statement. "This historic win protects millions of Americans across the country from higher prices for essential groceries—from milk, to bread, to eggs—ultimately allowing consumers to keep more money in their pockets."
"This victory has a direct, tangible impact on the lives of millions of Americans who shop at Kroger or Albertsons-owned grocery stores for their everyday needs, whether that's a Fry's in Arizona, a Vons in Southern California, or a Jewel-Osco in Illinois," he added. "This is also a victory for thousands of hardworking union employees, protecting their hard-earned paychecks by ensuring Kroger and Albertsons continue to compete for workers through higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions."
While Liu was celebrating the preliminary injunction from Oregon-based U.S. District Court Judge Adrienne Nelson, later Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Marshall Ferguson released a ruling that blocked the merger in Washington state.
"We're standing up to mega-monopolies to keep prices down," said Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson. "We went to court to block this illegal merger to protect Washingtonians' struggling with high grocery prices and the workers whose jobs were at stake. This is an important victory for affordability, worker protections, and the rule of law."
Advocacy groups applauding the decisions also pointed to the high cost of groceries and the anticipated impact of Kroger buying Albertsons—a $24.6 billion deal first announced in October 2022.
"American families are the big winner today, thanks to the Federal Trade Commission. The only people who stood to gain from the potential merger between Albertsons and Kroger were their wealthy executives and investors," asserted Liz Zelnick of Accountable.US. "The rest of us are letting out a huge sigh of relief knowing today's victory is good news for competitive prices and consumer access."
Describing the federal decision as "a victory for commonsense antitrust enforcement that puts people ahead of corporations," Food & Water Watch senior food policy analyst Rebecca Wolf also pointed out that "persistently high food prices are hitting Americans hard, and a Kroger-Albertsons mega-merger would have only made it worse."
"Already, a handful of huge corporations' stranglehold on our food system means that consumers are paying too much for too little choice in supermarkets, workers are earning too little, and farmers and ranchers cannot get fair prices for their crops and livestock," she noted. "Today's decision and strengthened FTC merger guidelines help change the calculus."
Like Wolf, Farm Action president and co-founder Angela Huffman similarly highlighted that "while industry consolidation increases prices for consumers and harms workers, grocery mergers also have a devastating impact on farmers and ranchers."
"When grocery stores consolidate, farmers have even fewer options for where to sell their products, and the chances of them receiving a fair price for their goods are diminished further," Huffman explained. "Today's ruling is a win for farmers, workers, and consumers alike."
Some advocates specifically praised Khan—a progressive FTC chair whom President-elect Donald Trumpplans to replace with Andrew Ferguson, a current commissioner who previously worked as chief counsel to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and as Republican counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Today's decision is a major win for shoppers and grocery workers. Families have been paying the price of unchecked corporate power in the food and grocery sector, and further consolidation would only worsen this crisis," declared Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens in a statement.
"FTC Chair Lina Khan's approach is the blueprint to deliver lower prices, higher wages, and an economy that works for everyone," Owens argued. "The rebirth of antitrust enforcement has protected consumers against the worst of corporate power in our economy and it would be wise to continue this approach."
Laurel Kilgour, research manager at the American Economic Liberties Project, called the federal ruling "a resounding victory for workers, consumers, independent retailers, and local communities nationwide—and a powerful validation of Chair Khan and the FTC's rigorous enforcement of the law."
"The FTC presented a strong case that Kroger and Albertsons fiercely compete head-to-head on price, quality, and service. The ruling is a capstone on the FTC's work over the past four years and includes favorable citations to the FTC's recent victories against the Tapestry-Capri, IQVIA-Propel, and Illumina-Grail mergers," Kilgour continued.
"The court also cites long-standing Supreme Court law which recognizes that Congress was also concerned with the impacts of mergers on smaller competitors," she added. "We applaud the FTC for securing one of the most significant victories in modern antitrust enforcement and for successfully protecting the public interest from harmful consolidation."
Despite the celebrations, the legal battle isn't necessarily over.
The Associated Pressreported that "the case may now move to the FTC, although Kroger and Albertsons have asked a different federal judge to block the in-house proceedings," and Colorado is also trying to halt the merger in state court.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular