Today, the Center for American Liberty filed its petition for certiorari at the United States Supreme Court in the case of B.W. v. Austin Independent School District.
The issue before the Court is whether a student can file a Title VI claim when the “primary impetus” for the harassment suffered was the plaintiff’s political views.
When Brooks Warden (B.W.) was in middle school in the Austin Independent School District, he wore a MAGA hat on a school field trip. This innocent act triggered a years-long campaign of bullying and harassment against him based on his race and his political views—at the hands of his classmates and teachers.
His peers bullied him relentlessly for supporting Donald Trump. Echoing legacy media talking points, students called Brooks a racist, homophobic, a Nazi, and even a member of the Ku Klux Klan. After a student beat Brooks up, rather than permanently move his abuser from the classroom, school officials returned his abuser to the classroom sitting him right next to Brooks.
But Brooks was also bullied because of his race.
Brooks’s classmates and even district staff would routinely mention his race and include white tropes alongside their invectives. For example, a teacher’s aide regularly referred to him as “Whitey” in class in front of other students. On one occasion, his middle school principal yanked Brooks’s earbud out of his ears and asked him in front of a room full of people if he was “listening to Dixie.”
The relentless bullying lasted for three years.
Brooks Warden, with the help of the Center for American Liberty, filed a lawsuit against the Austin Independent School District asserting racial discrimination under Title VI. The Federal District Court dismissed the case reasoning the discrimination Brooks suffered was primarily politically motivated and that the racial discrimination he suffered wasn’t “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” enough.
An en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a split decision—9 judges ruled in Brooks’s favor while 9 judges voted to affirm the Federal District Court. In concurrence, Judge Richman—joined by Judges Southwick, Douglas, and Ramirez—reasoned the primary impetus of the harassment Brooks suffered was politically driven, not racially driven.
But Title VI contains no such “primary impetus” standard. In fact, caselaw suggests otherwise. Through it petition for certiorari, the Center for American Liberty argues that the existence of political discrimination doesn’t negate the racial discrimination Brooks suffered. The Fifth Circuit is clearly divided on this issue and it is our hope the U.S. Supreme Court will clarify.