Amicus Projects

The Racial Justice Project is actively engaged in promoting racial justice through law reform. In support of this goal, the Racial Justice Project files and joins amicus curiae briefs in federal and state court cases that will have a significant impact on the protection of constitutional and civil rights. Cases and documents are available below.

Shelby County v. Holder
Decision pending

At the request of one of the parties, the Racial Justice Project has filed an amicus brief in Shelby County v. Holder, a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and will likely be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court next year.

Legal Documents

Hithon v. Tyson Foods
Decision pending

The New York Law School Racial Justice Project filed a brief in a case in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Hithon v. Tyson Foods. Mr. Hithon, an African-American man, claims that Tyson Foods discriminated against him when it denied him a promotion. Two Alabama juries found for Mr. Hithon and awarded him substantial damages. The appeals court, however, reversed both juries. Mr. Hithon is now seeking to have the en banc court of appeals rehear the case.

In its brief the Racial Justice Project argues that defendant supervisor's use of the word "boy" to describe Mr. Hithon is probative of racially discriminatory intent under Section 1981. In writing the brief, students involved in the project had to gather and review historical research about the general cultural understanding that the word "boy," when used by a white person to describe an adult black male, is racially discriminatory.

Legal Documents

Fisher v. University of Texas
Decision pending

New York Law School’s Racial Justice Project has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in support of the University of Texas in a case filed by two white applicants challenging the constitutionality of the University’s race-conscious admissions policies.

In its brief the Racial Justice Project argued: that the University’s First Amendment interest in pursuing diversity extends to the specific means it chooses in order to obtain that diversity; that the University’s limited use of race is consistent with Supreme Court precedent; and that classroom diversity is an essential component of the judicially sanctioned concept of diversity.

Legal Documents

King v. Beaufort Co. Bd. of Educ.
Decision pending

In December of 2009, the Racial Justice Project was one of more than thirty organizations and individuals to sign onto an amicus curiae brief in support of appellant in the Supreme Court of North Carolina case King v. Beaufort Co. Bd. of Educ. The King suit challenged North Carolina’s widespread use of exclusionary discipline measures in schools, such as long-term out-of-school suspensions, which unnecessarily marginalize and criminalize many students.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina of a lower court finding in favor of the school district, the Racial Justice Project and fellow amici argued that sanctioning exclusionary discipline measures jeopardizes students’ fundamental right to education enshrined in the North Carolina Constitution. For instance, suspension and expulsion are linked to poorer academic performance and increased likelihood of school dropout and involvement with the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Amici also noted that these disciplinary practices disproportionately burden students of color, thereby exacerbating racial inequalities in educational achievement across the state. Amici next noted that most incidents giving rise to exclusionary disciplinary measures do not threaten school safety. Finally, amici refuted the lower court’s finding that school discipline is not counted among the “qualitative” measures of a school’s quality of education.

Legal Documents

Ricci v. DeStefano
129 S.Ct. 2658
Decided June 29, 2009

In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the City of New Haven violated Title VII by refusing to certify the results of two promotional exams that had been given to firefighters. New Haven refused to certify the results because no African Americans and very few Hispanic Americans were eligible for promotions based on the test scores.

Justice Kennedy defined the Court’s task as reconciling Title VII’s bans on discriminatory impact and discriminatory treatment. He held that New Haven had failed to demonstrate a “strong basis in evidence” for believing that its tests were flawed or that it could have identified qualified candidates for promotion through other, less discriminatory means.

Justice Ginsburg’s dissent disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the City’s actions were race-based. In her view, an employer’s desire to utilize a fair and non-discriminatory test is racially neutral.

New York Law School's Racial Justice Project filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the City of New Haven.

Legal Documents