Federal judge dismisses lawsuit challenging minority representation on Alabama board
The Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery, Alabama as seen on Feb. 4, 2025. A law that maintains diversity on the Alabama Real Estate Appraisers Board remains after case challenging it is dismissed. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit last week that challenged a state law and administrative regulation requiring the Alabama Real Estate Appraisers Board to have at least two minority members.
U.S. District Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. dismissed the case on Friday after both parties agreed to end the proceedings after the plaintiff in the case, American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER), objected to being subjected to discovery.
With both parties agreeing to end the litigation, Huffaker then agreed to the stipulations from both parties and ended the case with prejudice.
The American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER), a group founded by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, argued that a 1989 law requiring that 'no less than two of the nine board members shall be of a minority race' on the board violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Huffaker, appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump, dismissed the case without weighing in on the merits of the case after the litigants agreed to end it.
Pamela Wyatt, president of the Alabama Association of Real Estate Brokers (AAREB), a mostly-Black organization that intervened to preserve the law, said in a statement that the case 'allowed us to demonstrate how important state laws ensuring diversity on state boards are to people in Alabama.'
'State boards make decisions that affect all Alabamians and should be reflective of the communities they serve,' the statement said. 'For the past three decades, this Alabama law has aimed to ensure that state boards reflect the state's rich diversity, and we are thrilled that this case has been dismissed with prejudice.'
The association intervened in the case after Gov. Kay Ivey's office said in court filings that the regulations were an 'unconstitutional requirement that 'she does not—and will not—enforce,'' according to court documents. The governor's office did object to AAER's challenge to inclusivity language in the statute.
Blum, the founder of the AAER, brought a lawsuit that led to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 to strike down race-conscious college admissions.
The AAER sued the state after the appraisers board rejected an application filed by Laura Clark, a member of AAER, because her appointment would have violated state statute that at least two of the board members be nonwhite.
Clark, who is white, also serves as the interim president of the Alabama Center for Law and Liberty, a conservative nonprofit law firm that says it advocates for 'limited government, free markets, and strong families.'
The AAREB said Alabama's long history of racial discrimination in housing made minority representation on the state appraisal board critical to fairness.
'This particular law is critically important for that organization and many, many, other real estate professionals of color, and people of color in the state, who will suffer immensely if the law is struck down,' said Brooke Menschel, an attorney with Democracy Forward, representing the AAREB, last year.
The parties proceeded to discovery last July after Huffaker rejected a request for summary judgment filed by AAER for the court to rule in its favor.
AAER was listed as a plaintiff in the case, which subjected it to discovery. That meant opposing counsel could depose the members and staff of the organization and request documents to be used as evidence during litigation.
'Rather than continue to litigate an issue that both plaintiff and defendant agree is unconstitutional, we went ahead and agreed to have the case be dismissed,' said Haley Dutch, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation.
In the spring, AAER requested to be removed as a party to the case and have Clark added instead, which would have subjected her to discovery.
'AAER brought this case on Ms. Clark's behalf, relying on the doctrine of associational standing to assert her interests, not its own,' AAER said in a request filed with the court in March to substitute Clark for AAER as the plaintiff. 'AAER is thus not a necessary or indispensable party to the litigation.'
Democracy Forward opposed the request.
'It is a fundamental rule of litigation that when you choose to sue you have to expose yourself to discovery,' Democracy Forward said in a filing in April opposing the substitution. 'AAER has a clear choice. If AAER does not want to litigate this case, it may voluntarily dismiss this litigation and Ms. Clark can file a new case if and when she has standing with regard to a live controversy. But if AAER wants to maintain this action, it must sit for a deposition, like all other litigants. It cannot shirk its discovery obligations.'
Huffaker rejected the request for substitution.
'What does appear clear is that AAER declared itself the jockey in a race that it started and has ridden this horse in this manner since February 2024,' Huffaker said. 'Clark could have been the jockey from the outset, but AAER chose not to proceed in that manner. Similarly, AAER could have switched riders (i.e., Clark for AAER) well before the amended pleadings deadline.'
'The Court will not tolerate such tactics,' Huffaker added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Who is to blame for Andrew Cuomo's loss in New York City? It may be Andrew Cuomo himself.
He made no further public appearances that day last month, even with primary day weeks away. Cuomo, who dominated New York for a decade as governor, entered the crowded field of Democrats back in March with the force of a steamroller and a commanding lead in the polls. He wore down the Democratic establishment until it lined up behind him, strong-armed unions and seeded a record-shattering super political action committee that would eventually spend $25 million. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up But even some of his allies said that up close, the campaign sometimes looked more like a listing ship, steered by an aging candidate who never really seemed to want to be there and showed little interest in reacquainting himself with the city he hoped to lead. Advertisement New Yorkers took note. And on Tuesday, a campaign that Cuomo, 67, had hoped would deliver retribution four years after his humiliating resignation as governor ended in another thumping rebuke instead. Voters preferred Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old state lawmaker whom Cuomo dismissed as woefully unqualified, by a comfortable margin. Advertisement Mamdani, a democratic socialist whose relentless focus on affordability and infectious campaign presence electrified younger voters especially, certainly deserves a great deal of credit for his victory. But a dozen allies and even some of Cuomo's own campaign advisers agreed in interviews that if he was looking to assess blame for a loss that could end his political career, he needed to look at himself. 'It was a creaky 1970s political machine versus a generational talent,' said Howard Glaser, a former Cuomo lieutenant who has since fallen out with Cuomo. 'He just couldn't see it.' 'He tried to force redemption on an unreceptive public,' Glaser added. The assessment now hangs over Cuomo as he deliberates whether to renew his campaign in the fall against Mamdani on a third-party ballot line. Some wealthy New Yorkers alarmed by Mamdani's left-wing views and others are urging Cuomo to keep running. But many of his allies said there would be no real point in carrying on if Cuomo treated the general election like the primary. People who worked on his campaign, who insisted on anonymity for fear of retribution, used words like 'entitled,' 'arrogant' and 'aloof' to describe the former governor's attitude. Another called the campaign 'astonishingly incompetent.' Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani campaigned outside Rockfeller Center in New York, on June 4. SHURAN HUANG/NYT Cuomo and his spokesperson disputed that his campaign choices -- good, bad or otherwise -- would have changed the outcome. Spokesperson Rich Azzopardi said that the campaign met its turnout goals in key districts and voting groups, particularly among Black and older voters who had a yearslong connection with the former governor. The problem, he said, was that Mamdani 'ran a campaign that managed to expand the electorate in such a way that no turnout model or poll was able to capture, while the rest of the field collapsed.' Advertisement In an interview, Cuomo dismissed the complaints of allies or advisers who said he should have shown up more around the city. 'None of these things explain the election outcome,' he said. 'They are either untrue or petty incidents that are of no consequence.' The contrast on the campaign trail between Cuomo and all the other candidates was stark. Under the rationale of protecting his polling lead, Cuomo skipped candidate forums and dodged the press as his rivals threw themselves into the city's maw with dizzying schedules. The former governor, who was born in Queens but lived most of his adult life in Albany and Westchester County, traveled in his Charger with an advance team putting out a buffer to prevent unwanted encounters with New Yorkers. Cuomo hired a platoon of consultants, but still leaned heavily on his longtime confidante, Melissa DeRosa, who had never run a city race. Mamdani built an enthusiastic volunteer army to spread his message; Cuomo largely outsourced his get-out-the-vote operation to labor unions and $25-an-hour canvassers. And in the end, Cuomo's message to an electorate hungry for change boiled down to: trust me, I've done this before. Some allies said it all contributed to an unhelpful image. 'All of us have a blind spot,' said former Gov. David Paterson, who endorsed Cuomo. 'His blind spot is that he doesn't really connect particularly well with, just, people.' For a time, it seemed Cuomo's return to power was a certainty. He began plotting a path back almost as soon as he resigned in August 2021 after sexual harassment allegations. He spent tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds fighting to clear his name in court, as he hungrily waited for an opening for public office. Advertisement New York Mayor Eric Adams arrived at his campaign launch rally a City Hall in New York on Thursday. Yuki Iwamura/Associated Press It arrived when Mayor Eric Adams was indicted on federal corruption charges and then persuaded the Trump administration to drop them. Cuomo, a master backroom deal-maker, exploited the opening deftly, nudging the mayor out of the primary while convincing business leaders, labor bosses and other Democrats that they should back him -- if not out of excitement than out of a sense of inevitability. 'I feel like people misunderstood my $250,000 for Cuomo for real enthusiasm,' said Mark Gorton, an investor who gave $250,000 to a pro-Cuomo super PAC. 'It was basically, 'Oh, looks like Cuomo is coming back. We don't want to be shut out. Let's try and get on his good side.'' At the time, polls showed Mamdani in second place, trailing by 20 points or more. Cuomo's allies openly pined for a two-man showdown. They figured Mamdani's socialist views and harsh criticism of Israel would act as a ceiling on his support. It turned out to be a fundamental miscalculation. In a race where a large majority of voters said the city was headed in the wrong direction and where many Democrats were looking for a change, Cuomo struggled. Cuomo launched his campaign with a 17-minute video, lecturing New Yorkers on how and why the city was spiraling to dark places. Mamdani's videos showed him spiraling across the city, riding the subways, embracing working New Yorkers and running into the icy waters off Coney Island to dramatize his call to freeze rents. Advertisement Stuart Appelbaum, the head of the retail workers union that formally endorsed Cuomo at the minimum wage rally, credited Mamdani for running a campaign about the future. 'Cuomo's campaign reflected the reality of New York from decades ago,' he said. Cuomo had another real problem. The same polls that showed him leading showed that he was also widely disliked by a large swath of Democratic primary voters who were put off by his moderate policies, domineering style or past scandals. By all appearances, Cuomo made little effort to reach them. Though it has been just four years since he resigned after 11 women accused him of sexual harassment, he offered no real contrition. He was not sorry, he said, because he had done nothing wrong. When he did venture to share a regret, he said he wished most that he had never resigned at all. Some of the governor's supporters and some of his own advisers had concerns about his low-key campaigning in real time, and pushed him to take up a more active public schedule. But Cuomo rarely strayed from his comfort zone in the pulpits of Black churches or at senior centers. Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn, the head of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, said she pleaded with the campaign to have Cuomo visit a mosque to build ties to Muslim New Yorkers. 'That was a very big thing,' she said. " They told me he was scheduled to go to the mosque, and then I found out he didn't. I was not too happy." Last Sunday, on the last day of early voting, Cuomo did show up at the Christian Cultural Center, a Black Brooklyn megachurch. But the Rev. A.R. Bernard, its pastor, said that after the former governor spoke 'brilliantly' for five minutes, he left rather than mingling with congregants. Advertisement 'He was not on the streets, where the people are,' he said. 'Maybe we have to be careful when we assume that we've got enough reputation, history and gravitas to float through an election like this.' Paterson described a different problem. 'Once I endorsed him, some of his campaign workers called me like I was an employee of his,' he said, demanding he show up in the spin-room of the final debate to promote Cuomo even though the candidate would not be there himself. 'I said, 'this is not my role,'' Paterson said. ''Thank you. Good night.'' This article originally appeared in
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Can Thomas Massie survive Trump's swamp machine?
The knives are out for Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Trump's $500 million political machine has Kentucky's 4th District in its crosshairs, and the establishment media is already writing the congressman's obituary. But they're missing the real story here. This isn't about one maverick politician bucking the system. This is about the soul of the Republican Party, and whether it still has one. Massie stands alone. While his colleagues genuflect before Trump's Truth Social tantrums, Massie asks the hard questions. When the president bypasses Congress to strike Iran, Massie calls it unconstitutional. When Trump demands Republicans rubber-stamp another bloated spending bill, Massie votes no. When the party leadership demands lockstep loyalty, Massie chooses principle. For this, he's branded a 'grandstander' and 'Little Boy' by a man who turned the presidency into performance art. What makes Massie unique in the age of MAGA isn't just that he dissents; it's that he can't be bought. While most Republicans perform ritual acts of submission to stay in Trump's favor, Massie reads the Constitution. In Washington, that's practically a revolutionary act. Massie represents what MAGA was supposed to be before it got hijacked: a rebellion against the permanent ruling class, not a rebranding of it. While Trump's movement descended into ego worship and grievance theater, Massie stayed where it began — principled, skeptical and unwilling to bow to power, no matter who holds it. The movement that promised to drain Washington ended up building a new palace. It said 'America First,' but delivered 'Trump First.' Through all this, Massie stayed exactly where he was: demanding spending cuts, opposing executive overreach and defending the Constitution even when his own party tried to bulldoze it. Every MAGA promise has been shattered by its loudest apostles. Fiscal restraint? Trump exploded the deficit. Constitutional order? He ruled by tweet and tantrum. Endless wars? He launched unauthorized strikes. Dismantling the swamp? He just gave it a new uniform. Massie didn't move. He voted against every bloated stimulus package. He fought against illegal wars — not just when Democrats launched them, but when Trump did it, too. He defended congressional authority when his own party told him to shut up and fall in line. That's not rebellion for show — it is actual courage. Of course, the MAGA faithful will call him a traitor. That's the tell. They don't oppose the establishment; they have just built a new one. And Massie, by refusing to play along, exposes the absurdity of their game. Trump's pollsters wave around numbers like talismans. They predict a pro-Trump challenger will sweep the district. But Massie knows his district. He has fought off three primary challenges since 2012. His voters value independence over obedience, and he gives them that, in spades. The Republican Party faces a choice. It can become Trump's private army, where one stray thought earns you a superPAC hit-job, or it can remember what it once stood for: Small government, constitutional order and leaders who know the limits of power. Massie is the road not taken. He endorsed the 2024 presidential bid of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis when Trump was in the basement. He voted against war fever when it was politically convenient to stay silent. His offense isn't ideological drift; it's consistency. And in a party now built on sycophancy, many view that as unforgivable. The irony is delicious. Trump, the man who ran against the swamp, now uses the swamp's playbook, word for word. Endless money, poll-tested puppets and political punishment for disobedience. The populist hero has become everything he claimed to hate. Massie's libertarian, constitutional streak isn't a glitch. In a party now driven by clicks and blind devotion, he's the outlier who still believes in self-government. When Trump calls for bombing another country on a whim, Massie's the one reminding us we're a republic, not a monarchy. This is what real anti-establishment politics looks like: not all-caps rage posts, not loyalty parades, but stubborn, often unpopular principle. Trump built a machine to generate outrage. Massie just shows up and votes the way he always has. If Massie falls, the Republican Party won't just lose a congressional seat; it will forfeit the last trace of the ideals it once pretended to believe in. Who will vote against the next trillion-dollar spending spree? Who will stand up to the next foreign war fever dream? Who will remind the executive branch — Republican or Democrat — that it is not above the law? Trump may have the war chest, but Massie has something far more dangerous to the machine: credibility and conviction. While others orbit Trump's moods, Massie orbits the founding documents. While others contort themselves to fit the day's narrative, he hasn't bent once in over a decade. This isn't just a primary. It's a referendum on whether the Republican Party still has room for Republicans. Not sycophants. Not performers. But actual public servants, men and women who care more about liberty than likes, more about separation of powers than social media relevance, more about the country than any cult of personality. Thomas Massie is the last Republican who remembers what the job is actually for. If he falls, what's left isn't a party. It'll be an echo chamber dressed up as a political movement. John Mac Ghlionn is a writer and researcher who explores culture, society and the impact of technology on daily life.
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite his major Supreme Court victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with a more than century-old constitutional precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of Trump's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in part to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved Americans, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused reentry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a few exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump signed an executive order upon assuming office in January that seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The order is part of the president's hard-line anti-immigration agenda, and he has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' — which they contend means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Md., a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued are usurping the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities on immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review' in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of policies across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and chief executive of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' Sullivan and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.
