XPost: alt.revisionism, talk.politics.guns, alt.war.civil.usa
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics

https://www.judicialwatch.org/reparations/

Evanston, Illinois Directs $25,000 Payments Exclusively to Blacks

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a class action lawsuit against Evanston, Illinois, on behalf of six individuals over the city’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program which makes $25,000 payments to black residents and descendants of black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and 1969. The
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Flinn et al. v Evanston (No. 1:24- cv-04269)).

The class action, civil rights lawsuit challenges “on Equal Protection
grounds Defendant City of Evanston’s use of race as an eligibility
requirement for a program that makes $25,000 payments to residents and
direct descendants of residents of the city five-plus decades if not more
than a century ago. Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring Defendant’s use
of race to be unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction
enjoining Defendant from continuing to use race as a requirement for
receiving payment under the program and request that the Court award them
and all class members damages in the amount of $25,000 each.” Through a
series of resolutions, the Evanston City Council created a program to
provide $25,000 cash payments to residents who lived in Evanston between
1919 and 1969 and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

The program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment because:

Remedying societal discrimination is not a compelling governmental
interest. Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 505 (1989); see also Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 307 ((1978) (opinion of Powell, J.) (describing “societal discrimination” as “an amorphous concept
of injury that may be ageless in its reach into the past.”) Remedying discrimination from 55 to 105 years ago or remedying discrimination
experienced at any time by an individual’s parents, grandparents, or great grandparents has not been recognized as a compelling governmental
interest…

Defendant also has not and cannot demonstrate that its use of a race as an eligibility requirement is narrowly tailored. Among other shortcomings, Defendant’s use of race as a proxy for experiencing discrimination between
1919 and 1969 does not limit eligibility to persons who actually
experienced discrimination during that relevant time period and therefore
is overinclusive. Defendant also failed to consider race-neutral alternatives, such as requiring prospective recipients show that they or
their parents, grandparents, or great grandparents actually experienced
housing discrimination during the relevant time period because of an
Evanston ordinance, policy, or procedure, as Defendant requires for the
third group of prospective recipients. Nor did Defendant take into
account race-neutral anti-discrimination remedies before adopting its race-based eligibility requirement.

The first group of persons eligible for the $25,000 payments are current Evanston residents who identify as Black or African American and were at
least 18 years of age between 1919 and 1969. Evanston refers to this group
as “ancestors.”

The second group are individuals who identify as Black or African American
who are at least 18 years of age and have at least one parent,
grandparent, or great grandparent who identifies (or identified) as Black
or African American, lived in Evanston for any period between 1919 and
1969, and was at least 18 at the time. Evanston refers to this group as
“direct descendants.” A “direct descendant” is not required to be a
current resident of Evanston to receive the payment.

Judicial Watch states in the lawsuit: “At no point in the application
process are persons in the first and second groups required to present
evidence that they or their ancestors experienced housing discrimination
or otherwise suffered harm because of an unlawful Evanston ordinance,
policy, or procedure or some other unlawful act or series of acts by
Evanston between 1919 and 1969. In effect, Evanston is using race as a
proxy for having experienced discrimination during this time period.”

The city committed $20 million to the program.

Judicial Watch states in the lawsuit that the six plaintiffs satisfy all eligibility requirements for participating in the program as “direct descendants” other that the race requirement (the actual number of
individuals who are potential class members is in the tens of thousands).

“The Evanston, Illinois’ ‘reparations’ program is nothing more than a ploy
to redistribute tax dollars to individuals based on race,” said Judicial
Watch President Tom Fitton. “This scheme unconstitutionally discriminates against anyone who does not identify as Black or African American. This
class action, civil rights lawsuit will be a historic defense of our color-blind Constitution.”

Judicial Watch is being assisted in the lawsuit by Christine Svenson of Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Kaufman, LLC.

Judicial Watch lawsuits challenging unconstitutional discrimination are extensive.

On January 29, 2024, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of San
Francisco taxpayers over a city program that discriminates in favor of biological black and Latino men who identify as women in the distribution
of tax money. The lawsuit was filed after Judicial Watch earlier forced
the release of records from the City of San Francisco showing the city prioritized tax money for black and Latino transgenders (biological men)
in the Guaranteed Income for Trans People program.

In December 2023, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court’s ruling and allowed Judicial Watch’s historic lawsuit filed on
behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer over a teachers’ contract that provides discriminatory job protections to certain racial minorities to proceed.

The City of Asheville, NC, in January 2022 settled a Judicial Watch
federal civil rights lawsuit after agreeing to remove all racially discriminatory provisions in a city-funded scholarship program.
Additionally, the city also agreed to remove racially discriminatory eligibility provisions in a related program that provides grants to
educators.

In May 2022, Judicial Watch won a court battle against California’s gender quota law for corporate boards. The verdict came after a 28-day trial. The verdict followed a similar ruling in Judicial Watch’s favor in April
finding California’s diversity mandate for corporate boards
unconstitutional.


--
We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that
stupid people won't be offended.

Durham Report: The FBI has an integrity problem. It has none.

No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.
Officially made Nancy Pelosi a two-time impeachment loser.

Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden
fiasco, President Trump.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.

President Trump boosted the economy, reduced illegal invasions, appointed dozens of judges and three SCOTUS justices.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)