On June 5, the Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services struck an important blow for equal treatment under the law.
Notably, in a unanimous decision, written by the most junior justice, liberal Ketanji Brown Jackson, and with a concurring opinion authored by the Court’s most senior justice, conservative Clarence Thomas, the court held that federal civil-rights statutes give members of majority groups the same right to sue as minorities.
The case involved Marlean Ames’ claim that the Ohio state agency where she worked denied her a promotion and then demoted her because she was a heterosexual woman. She alleged sexual orientation discrimination in that both her old job and the one she had sought were given to gay people. Her supervisor at the time was also gay.
The lower courts threw out the case essentially because Ms. Ames, who is straight, is a member of a majority group. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Ms. Ames needed to substantiate her claim by imposing a higher legal standard because she is a majority group member.
In the Ames case, Justice Jackson cited the text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
“By establishing the same protection for every ‘individual’—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”
Discrimination is discrimination, irrespective of whether the individual is black, white, gay or straight.
In his concurrence, co-signed by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Thomas goes further by writing that the Sixth Circuit’s test is “plainly at odds with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.”
Also, how are judges even supposed to define who’s in a “majority” group?
“Black employees in Detroit, for example, make up a majority in their city,” Thomas noted.
Claims of discrimination from members of majority groups have already become more common in recent years. The Ames decision is expected to bolster a current wave of reverse discrimination lawsuits by removing a significant obstacle for plaintiffs.
The fact that Justices Jackson and Thomas could find common ground should be encouraging.
If the Ames ruling sounds like a big surprise with all the vitriol directed at the Supreme Court, note in last year’s term nearly half of cases (45.8%) were unanimous.
The Ames appeal got support from critics of diversity, equity and inclusion—or DEI—programs. The backlash to DEI programs was stoked by the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision ending the use of race in college admissions.
The ruling in cases against Harvard College (SFFA v. Harvard) and the University of North Carolina (SFFA v. UNC) held that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts for a six-justice majority.
Roberts made clear his position in an earlier case that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
It’s said the Supreme Court follows the election returns. California voters sent a clear message in November 2020. In America’s deep-blue and most diverse state, voters rejected an effort to reintroduce race-based preferences in state education, hiring and contracts.
Californians decisively voted down Proposition 16, a ballot measure that would have repealed this provision in the state constitution:
“The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
More noteworthy, the 57.2% to 42.8% margin of victory for keeping the non-discrimination language in the state constitution was larger than the 54.5% to 45.5% when voters passed it as Proposition 209 in 1996.
True equal opportunity may be America’s future.
