Supreme Court declines appeal from White Texan claiming racial harassment at school
WASHINGTON – A White Texan says he was targeted by classmates and teachers at his predominantly Hispanic school district because of his race, including being called 'Whitey' by a math aide and being asked by a principal if he was listening to Dixie music.
In middle school band class in 2018, two students brought up 'the evils of the white race in American history,' Brooks Warden said in his years-long lawsuit.
The Supreme Court on June 30 declined to decide if Warden can sue for racial harassment under the Civil Rights Act.
More: Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case
The Austin Independent School District said Warden failed to show the alleged hostility was based on race, rather than his political views.
'This case has devolved into a publicity stunt fueled by partisan rhetoric and political opportunism,' lawyers for the school district told the Supreme Court. 'Austin ISD does not condone harassment or bullying of any kind, and it regrets that Brooks had negative experiences with its students and staff members, but this is not a Title VI case.'
A federal judge dismissed the complaint. But the Louisiana-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals evenly divided over the issue.
One of the appeals judges who sided with Warden said the culture increasingly accepts – it not celebrates – racism against White people.
'Racism is now edgy and exciting—so long as it's against whites,' Circuit Judge James Ho wrote.
Warden said the bullying began after he wore a MAGA hat on a middle school field trip in 2017. His lawyers said he should not have to prove that race was the main reason he was targeted instead of just one of the reasons.
The school district said Warden never complained that he was mistreated because of his race while he was a student there. That allegation came nearly a year after he sued and after a local judge had dismissed his multiple amended complaints against the school, lawyers for the district said.
The court, the lawyers said, should not 'open the proverbial floodgates to civil liability by allowing students to sue their schools for race-based harassment every time they hear a political viewpoint about race that they do not share.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
40 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump's deportations are hurting Constellation Brands' beer sales
Constellation Brands' beer sales fell 2% in its latest quarter as President Donald Trump's deportations and consumers' broader economic fears weighed on demand. In April, Constellation CEO Bill Newlands said that Hispanic consumers are spending less due to their concerns about Trump's hardline immigration policy and possible job losses in industries with high Latino employment bases. During Wednesday's earnings conference call, Newlands acknowledged that raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were making it difficult to predict consumer behavior moving forward, although he demurred about tying the beer division's slowdown to Hispanic shoppers specifically this quarter. "When you see a fair amount of change, both Hispanic and non-Hispanic consumers are concerned about inflation and about cost structure," Newlands told analysts. Hispanic consumers are a core part of Constellation's customer base. The brewer, which owns Modelo, Corona and Pacifico, says that roughly half of its beer sales come from Latinos in the U.S. Constellation's earnings and revenue for the quarter ended May 31 fell short of Wall Street's estimates, hurt by weaker beer demand and higher aluminum costs from Trump's tariffs. Still, the company reiterated its full-year outlook, signaling confidence that it can achieve its financial targets despite economic uncertainty. Constellation isn't the only packaged food and beverage company to report weaker demand from Hispanic consumers. Last quarter, Coca-Cola and Colgate-Palmolive were also among the companies that tied a slowdown in U.S. sales to a pullback from Hispanic shoppers.
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Opt-Outs From Gender Storytime Don't Suffice
You are correct to welcome the 'good sense' displayed by the majority of the Supreme Court, who recently reaffirmed the fundamental religious-freedom right of parents to direct the education and formation of their children ('The Court on Parental Rights and Porn Sites,' Review & Outlook, June 30). It should be remembered, though, that state-run schooling never was and never can be a neutral enterprise. Our government schools originated as an ideological project: Their purpose, of which the dissenting justices appear to approve, was to combat the competing influences of family, neighborhood and church—and of one church in particular.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court's recent rulings are a plea to Congress
The Supreme Court has just wrapped up another term that caused heartache in some and glee in others, largely depending on your legal and political ideology. The theme of this term, though, was bigger than just a conservative majority acting like a conservative majority. It was Congress' failure to assert its authority and its continued decision instead to cede duties and powers to the president. In every major case involving federal statutes, the court made plain that it would hew narrowly to the language in those statutes. To the extent that people or groups are unhappy with those decisions, the court is saying that's Congress' problem to fix, not the court's. Let's start with the biggest and most politically charged case of the term: Trump v. CASA. While the case involves the president's executive order on birthright citizenship, the justices considered a narrower question: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, a federal judge can issue a nationwide injunction to stop a president's executive order. Typically, judges have the power to make rulings that affect the people in their courtroom, but not the entire country. The court's most junior conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett, authored a 6-3 opinion finding that, under the nearly 250-year-old federal law, judges do not in fact have the power to issue broad forms of relief that cover the entire country. Many viewed the CASA decision as the conservative court handing a win for the Trump administration. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that, with the ruling, the majority 'strips federal courts of the ability to safeguard constitutional rights in the face of nationwide executive overreach.' In the most dire terms, Sotomayor warned that as a result of the court's decision, 'No right is safe in a regime where courts cannot fully protect those before them.' There's no doubt that the court's ruling is a win for any current or future inhabitant of the Oval Office. But nothing in the majority opinion suggested that Congress lacks the power to go back and write a different law explicitly providing federal judges with this power. If we the people want a single federal judge to be able to stop a president's executive orders, we should ask our elected representatives to pass a law that says so. Next, consider the case of Medina v. Planned Parenthood of South Atlantic, where the court concluded that individual Medicaid beneficiaries did not have a private right to sue in federal court to enforce purported violations of the federal Medicaid law. Back in 2018, South Carolina's governor attempted to exclude Planned Parenthood from the state's Medicaid program. An individual who had obtained care at Planned Parenthood sought to sue South Carolina, arguing that its decision violated the provision of federal Medicaid that allows beneficiaries to obtain health care from any qualified provider. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the opinion for the majority of the court and concluded that the case could not move forward because the federal Medicaid law did not clearly demonstrate Congress' 'intent to confer individual rights.' Once again, the Supreme Court did not conclude that individuals can never sue to vindicate alleged violations of a specific law, but rather that the law needs to be redrafted to let them do so. Finally, in a unanimous decision authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan, the court rejected the Mexican government's attempt to hold U.S. gun manufacturers liable for gun violence in that country. There is little doubt that guns made in the U.S. make their way into the hands of Mexican drug cartels and wreak havoc in that country. But under a federal statute, gun manufacturers are largely immune from liability, and both liberal and conservative justices refused to find an exception to that broad grant of immunity. If we want gun manufacturers to pay for gun violence abroad, we need to tell members of Congress to write a different law. Simply put, this Supreme Court won't step in when Congress is silent or vague. The court will not patch up holes in outdated laws. The Constitution vests 'All legislative Powers … in a Congress of the United States,' yet modern Congresses have too often sat on their hands or yielded to the executive branch. If you want federal judges to have the power to issue nationwide injunctions to halt a president's executive orders, or individuals to sue to vindicate their rights under federal Medicaid law, or a foreign country to sue gun manufacturers, speak with your elected representatives. The Supreme Court is not here to be your lawmaker. This article was originally published on
