Only the Supreme Court remains for disparate impact crusaders
A few months ago my colleague Wencong Fa blogged about the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hardie v. NCAA. Hardie, a convicted felon, sought to have the NCAA’s ban on felon coaches struck down as illegal under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That is the tenet of our civil rights laws that prohibits hotels and lunch counters from discriminating against patrons on the basis of race. Hardie, and his team of disparate impact lawyers, sought to apply disparate impact theory to Title II. They argued that prohibiting felons from coaching at NCAA events violates Title II, because the prohibition has a disparate impact on black individuals. The Ninth Circuit rejected his claim, and the concurring opinion of Judge Faber explicitly relied on PLF’s brief in explaining why Title II does not cover disparate impact claims.
As expected, Hardie’s team of disparate impact advocates petitioned the Ninth Circuit for rehearing and rehearing en banc. That petition was denied this week. The legal theory pushed by these attorneys is as radical as it is offensive. I am glad the Ninth Circuit rejected this claim, but I suspect we shall be seeing a petition to the Supreme Court in a few months.
What to read next
PLF filed an application asking the Michigan Supreme Court to grant review and bring justice to Uri Rafaeli—who lost an entire home to Oakland County over an $8 debt, and to Andrew Ohanessian—who lost 2.7 acres over a $6,000 debt.
A trial court in Marin County, California, handed down a tentative ruling in Cherk v. County of Marin, rejecting the Cherk family’s argument that it was unconstitutional for the County to force them to pay $40,000 into an “affordable housing” fund.
Before making a decision, most organizations take into account the costs and benefits of a proposed action, and will change course if the costs outweigh the benefits. Unfortunately, the federal government takes a different approach…
When the Cherk family applied for a permit to split their large residential parcel into two lots, the County of Marin demanded they pay $40,000 into the County’s “affordable housing” fund as a condition of the permit. The Cherks objected, but got nowhere with County officials and ultimately paid the fee under protest.