Bus driver forces Black men to sit in the back or he'll call cops, MN suit says
Her refusal helped bring an end to legalized segregation on buses, among other Jim Crow-era laws.
But, on July 13, 2023, two Black men were told to sit in the back of a bus, according to a Minnesota lawsuit filed on July 7.
Two Black men boarded a Jefferson Lines bus in Fargo, North Dakota, and were instructed by the driver to sit in the back of the bus despite the company having a 'first come, first serve' policy for seats, the lawsuit said.
The two men started to argue with the driver, but he threatened to call police if the passengers did not comply, the lawsuit said.
One of the two men forced to sit in the back is now suing Jefferson Lines and the unnamed bus driver, accusing them of racial discrimination.
'Rosa Parks took a stand in 1955, refused to give up her seat, and we're not going back, not now, not ever, not in 2023, not in 2025,' the man's attorney, Samuel Savage, told McClatchy News in a phone interview.
The attorney representing Jefferson Lines did not immediately respond to McClatchy News' request for comment on July 11. A spokesperson told KARE that the company doesn't comment on active legal matters.
The plaintiff, who is seeking $50,000 in damages, sat in the back of the bus during his ride from Fargo to Crookston, Minnesota, rather than continue to argue with the driver, according to the lawsuit.
'I think in the moment, it was more of a 'I just want to get to my destination and be about my business,'' Savage said.
The two men were the only Black people on the bus on July 13, the complaint said. Other passengers were allowed to choose their seats, according to the suit.
Four days after the man's bus ride, Jefferson Lines asked the bus driver to create an incident report. The driver wrote that he asked the two Black men to sit in the back of the bus because they smelled like marijuana, the lawsuit said.
The driver was given a verbal warning for 'deviating from the policy' the next month, according to the lawsuit.
In January, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights said there was probable cause that discrimination occurred during the 2023 bus ride.
A similar incident on a Jefferson Lines bus in Minneapolis occurred in 2009 when a driver told a mother and her 3-year-old daughter to sit in the back of the bus, which she said was because they were Black, the Minnesota Star Tribune reported.
Crookston, Minnesota, is about a 70-mile drive northeast from Fargo, North Dakota.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Cop beats Homeland Security agent in ‘parking lot rage' at CA Costco, lawyer says
A man working for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is suing a San Diego police officer accused of beating him in a 'parking lot rage' at a California Costco, leaving him with a concussion and a dislocated shoulder, his attorney said. According to a federal lawsuit brought by Chu Ding, 53, of San Diego, he was knocked unconscious by Officer Jonathan Ferraro during the July 2, 2024, assault, then was wrongfully detained as officers 'denied (him) food, water and medical care' for five hours. A complaint filed July 1 says the assault stems from when Ferraro blocked Ding, who is a DHS agent, in a parking space with his truck at a Costco on Carmel Mountain Road. Footage provided to McClatchy News by attorney Julia Yoo, who represents Ding, shows the truck pull up in front of Ding and block his parked car. Ding is seen walking over to the truck and tapping on it before returning to his car. The video shows the truck slowly driving forward in response, then reversing back into the same spot, in front of Ding. Afterward, Ding tapped on the trunk of the truck 'to let Ferraro know that he was leaving,' resulting in a violent reaction, the complaint says. Ferraro emerged from his vehicle and called Ding a 'Chinese piece of (expletive),' according to the complaint. He then pushed Ding. 'When Mr. Ding refused to back down, Ferraro who is two decades younger, picked Mr. Ding up and slammed him into the ground,' the complaint says. The physical altercation was captured in the video, which ends with Ding seen lying in the parking lot. In an emailed statement to McClatchy News on July 8, Yoo said Ferraro 'directed his frustration toward an innocent victim who was attempting to give him a parking space.' 'Ferraro engaged in conduct that is illegal for anyone as well as being intemperate and racist,' Yoo also said, adding that 'this was egregious conduct.' In addition to Ferraro, Ding's lawsuit names multiple San Diego police officers and the city as defendants. He is suing on 11 causes of action, including excessive force, wrongful detention and false arrest. The city attorney's office said it is unable to comment on the litigation and declined McClatchy News' request for comment on July 8. The San Diego Police Department did not return a request for comment. Yoo told McClatchy News that 'the worst thing in the case was that Ferraro conspired with at least four other officers to falsify an arrest report and deny a seriously injured man water and medical care to try to extort an apology to justify his own misconduct.' The lawsuit says six San Diego officers arrived at Costco and handcuffed Ding after he was slammed to the ground. Ding was detained in a patrol car for a few hours, when one officer learned he worked for DHS, according to the complaint. Then he was taken to a police station. At the station, the complaint says, Ding was pressured into writing Ferraro an apology letter. When Ding finished the letter, he was falsely arrested on a felony charge of obstructing or resisting an officer, according to the complaint. A police commander ultimately ordered one officer to take Ding to a hospital, following a request from Ding's wife. He was seen that evening at Scripps Health San Diego Emergency Room between 7:45 and 8:30, about five hours after he was detained at Costco, according to the complaint. Ding was diagnosed with a fractured rib and a contusion, along with a dislocated shoulder and concussion, the filing says. He was then released around midnight and booked into the San Diego Central Jail, where his bail was set at $20,000, according to the complaint. He remained in jail until about 2 or 3 p.m. on July 3, 2024, when he posted a $1,800 bond, the filing says. Ding's arrest caused him physical and reputational harm, as his DHS 'coworkers discovered immediately that Mr. Ding had been booked into the Central Jail,' the complaint says. DHS initiated an internal investigation into Ding, who was cleared of wrongdoing several months later, according to the lawsuit. The San Diego District Attorney's Office declined to prosecute Ding more than a week after his arrest, the complaint says. The filing includes three photos of Ding's injuries, stemming from his arrest, including two showing bruising and marks on his right shoulder and arm. The lawsuit argues Ding's mistreatment by San Diego police is linked to a larger pattern of the department's officers using 'excessive and unnecessary force.' With the lawsuit, Ding seeks an unspecified amount in compensatory, special and punitive damages and demands a jury trial. Ding and his attorneys are also calling for an investigation. 'We demand a thorough and independent investigation not just of Ferraro but of the individual officers and their supervisors for their role in charging an innocent man with a felony,' Yoo told McClatchy News. 'If they feel emboldened enough to do this to another law enforcement agent, imagine what they must do to assault, frame and extort regular citizens,' Yoo added.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
‘I voted for none of this!' Were Trump's voters duped?
Donald Trump talks like a man of the people but leads like a brand ambassador for dysfunction. Sure, the president dominates headlines, social media feeds and MAGA merch stands. But for the everyday Americans who handed him power out of desperation for change and an alternative to the Biden administration, Trump is starting to look like fool's gold: shiny on the outside, hollow at the core. In late April, a PBS -Marist poll gave Trump an 'F' grade for his first 100 days back in office — and let's be honest, that grade feels generous. While immigration remains the one consistent drum he bangs, even that is more performance than policy. Yes, border crossings are down. But the cruelty, confusion, and lack of transparency surrounding his policy has many Americans saying, 'Not like this.' Even conservative voices are turning up the volume. Patrick Bet-David, a three-time Trump voter and popular right-wing podcaster, called the administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case 'the biggest fumble' so far. 'I'm a supporter,' said Bet-David. 'Three times I voted for this man. This is by far the biggest fumble this administration has had thus far. … Why are you fumbling this? Why are you not having an emergency meeting to get on the same page and say hey, we're gonna be on the same page on messaging on this?' He's not wrong. Trump's Justice Department abruptly declared the case closed — despite years of teasing a bombshell client list. Then there's the tariff tirade. In true Trump fashion, he slapped a 30 percent tariff on imports from the EU and Mexico, blindsiding allies who had been negotiating in good faith. This is economic whiplash: One day you're at the table, the next you're dodging a trade war. Even Mexico — a country that has learned to hold its diplomatic breath during Trump tantrums — called the move 'unjust.' This is the same Mexico that helped us in a time of need — sending water rescue teams and firefighters to Texas just recently after the horrific floods that killed at least 129 people. According to a brand new YouGov-Economist poll, support for Trump is plummeting among Black voters, who were once considered a potential swing bloc in 2024. In May, 22 percent of them approved of Trump. By July? Just 15 percent. What's driving the dip? The economy. Black voters, like most Americans, are tired of instability, rising prices, and Trump's carnival-style economic policy. The same voters who gave Trump a shot because they wanted real change — lower costs, better jobs, stronger communities — are starting to see through the illusion. Not to mention, we entered a 12-day war with Iran that no one wanted. Don't take my word for it. Let comedian and podcaster Andrew Schultz — a proud 2024 Trump voter — tell it. 'I voted for none of this,' said Schultz. 'He's doing the exact opposite of everything I voted for. I want him to stop the wars — he's funding them. I want him to shrink spending, reduce the budget — he's increasing it. It's like everything that he said he's going to do — except sending immigrants back. And now he's even flip-flopped on that, which I kind of like. But he's like, oh, we need the people working in restaurants and we need our farmers.' It's convenient for Schultz to play confused now — he probably didn't bother to review the Project 2025 initiative that everyone anti-Trump was warning about for the entire last election season. But I digress. The truth is, Trump governs like a man who believes buzz is better than results, and that soundbites count more than substance. But voters are getting wise. The slogans are stale, the gimmicks are wearing thin and the average American can't pay the rent with fake gold. Lindsey Granger is a News Nation contributor and co-host of The Hill's commentary show 'Rising.' This column is an edited transcription of her on-air commentary.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
One year after Chevron's demise, gun regulation is unraveling
Just over a year ago, the Supreme Court struck down one of the main pillars of how modern federal regulation works — the Chevron doctrine. This rule, whose name was taken from a 1980s Supreme Court case, had required federal judges to defer to federal agency interpretations of their own authority in cases where the underlying laws were vague. The Loper Bright ruling that ended so-called 'Chevron deference' last June was described as a 'return to judicial balance' — a technical correction. But its consequences are now impossible to ignore. This decision gas hit gun regulation especially hard, stripping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of one of its key tools for enforcing gun control. Between Loper Bright and the Supreme Court's striking down of the ban on bump stocks in Garland v. Cargill, courts across the South have begun systematically overturning rules. Before Loper Bright, the ATF claimed the authority to decide what counts as a firearm — including whether modifications or added parts fell under regulation. The agency used that flexibility to slow the spread of dangerous modifications. After the demise of Chevron, however, courts are no longer required to defer to agency interpretations, meaning that agencies like the ATF can no longer count on winning if they 'fill in the blanks' where Congress was vague. That means every new restriction must be clearly written into law, and older rules are now being challenged in court. The ATF is left watching from the sidelines as Loper Bright has become a standard reference in gun-related cases. Southern states didn't waste time. Immediately after the decision, judges began citing it, and one year later we're seeing regional changes. For example, efforts are now underway to draft looser rules on pistol braces — add-ons that effectively turn pistols into rifle-style weapons — after the stricter Biden-era rule was struck down as impermissibly vague. A judge in Texas also blocked ATF's attempts to regulate forced-reset triggers — devices that let semi-auto rifles fire almost like automatics — on the grounds that only Congress can decide what counts as a machine gun. This ruling shows how, after Chevron ended, agencies lost their ability to stretch unclear laws into gray areas. The argument is clear and consistent: If something isn't explicitly defined as a firearm in the law, the agency cannot necessarily count on its claims of authority over it holding up in court. Without Chevron, regulators can't just interpret or assume provisions 'in the interest of public safety' and expect their interpretations to carry the day by default. Chevron's fall didn't just weaken the ATF — it shook the foundation of how regulation works. Now, every gun rule must be spelled out. Until that happens, loopholes remain open. Meanwhile, Congress's continued silence has opened the door to a wave of new weapon variations and modifications. The market is drifting into chaos, making rules hard to enforce and define. By striking down Chevron, the court removed one of the few tools still keeping gun regulation alive. Without new laws from Congress, legal chaos becomes the norm. More weapons, more loopholes, less clarity. The court made its choice. Now it's up to Congress. And as long as politicians stay quiet, the law is being written by those with guns in their hands. Artem Kolisnichenko writes on crime, immigration, and border policy across the American South and Southwest.
