The Supreme Court‘s rulings are often controversial and divided along party lines. But sometimes, unlike our other branches of government, the court still reaches bipartisan consensus — and it just did exactly that, to deal a fatal blow to extreme identity politics.
Here’s the background. The high court just ruled unanimously, 9-0, in favor of an Ohio woman, Marlean Ames, who claims she was discriminated against in employment for being heterosexual, the kind of practice that’s sometimes called “reverse discrimination.” Ames had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, a government agency responsible for overseeing the juvenile criminal justice system, since 2004. In 2019, she applied for a management job and was passed over for it, with the job ultimately going to a lesbian woman. But it didn’t stop there.
Ames was then removed from her prior role and given a demotion, while a gay man was put into the job she’d previously held. That’s quite a “coincidence.”
Ames sued the agency under the Civil Rights Act, which makes employment discrimination illegal in many contexts, and has been extended to include protections for sexual orientation. Yet when her case reached a federal appeals court, that court ruled that because Ames’s case involved “reverse discrimination” — she was alleging discrimination against her heterosexuality, rather than for being homosexual — she had to reach a higher evidentiary burden for her case to proceed.
The Supreme Court just ripped up that ruling and threw it into the proverbial fireplace. All nine justices, even the three liberals, boldly stated that under federal law, there is no distinction between “discrimination” and “reverse discrimination.” It’s all illegal, and it’s all subject to the same standards.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee, wrote that the relevant federal law “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs” and “[establishes] the same protections for every ‘individual.’”
It’s sad that the Supreme Court even had to litigate such a matter, as you’d think this would all just be common sense. But it did, and the ramifications here are significant.
After all, liberal thought leaders have long advocated explicit “reverse discrimination.” So-called “antiracist” author Ibram X. Kendi, whose 2019 book How to be an Antiracist was a bestseller, openly argued that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” This approach has been embodied in progressive policies such as affirmative action, race-specific COVID-19 relief programs, and slavery reparations that exclude, punish, or deprioritize some members of majority groups. While they may be well-intentioned, these policies only further divide people along identity lines and inflame tensions. They’re also blatantly illegal.
SUPREME COURT RULES ‘REVERSE DISCRIMINATION’ CHALLENGES SHOULD NOT FACE HIGHER STANDARD
Thankfully, American culture has already started to move away from this regressive and counterproductive approach. Now, the law has too. This Supreme Court ruling leaves little wiggle room for these kinds of “progressive” discrimination efforts and can be used to bolster lawsuits taking down these programs.
This is bad news for identity politics advocates and grifters such as Kendi. But it’s great news for all people, left, right, or center, who want to live in harmony without discrimination of any kind.
Brad Polumbo is an independent journalist and host of the Brad vs Everyone podcast.