The brief was filed Monday (PDF) in the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which is considering the constitutionality of the law after a federal judge upheld key provisions of the law in September. “HB 56 is nothing less than a modern-day incarnation of some the most abhorrent types of institutionalized discrimination to have emerged in the history of the United States,” read the brief.

The brief argues that HB 56 encourages or even forces Alabama law enforcement, schools, public offices, and ordinary citizens to discriminate based on race, ethnicity and national origin. In the context of Alabama’s “long and disturbing history of civil rights violations,” the brief compares HB 56 to Alabama’s Jim Crow laws that “required law enforcement officials to enforce discriminatory laws, and criminalizing the exercise of fundamental human liberties.”

The law excludes children of color, particularly Latino children and children of other immigrant communities, from public schools, mandates racial profiling, and permits the detention of U.S. citizens and lawfully present immigrants if they fail to establish their immigration status to the satisfaction of local law enforcement.

HB 56 threatens public safety by eroding relationships between law enforcement and immigrant communities, resulting in underreporting of crime, especially hate crimes. It also threatens the personal liberty and property for anyone that may appear or sound foreign.

The legislation represents a form of legalized racism that threatens the Latino community in Alabama most directly, but also impacts all people of color, including Middle Eastern and Asian Americans.

Protecting the 14th Amendment
By Eva Paterson
Huffington Post

For almost 150 years, the 14th Amendment has been the backbone of civil rights law in America. Its protection of individual rights for all — from freed slaves to immigrants to workers fighting against race discrimination — has made this amendment an honorary member of the Bill of Rights.

No wonder it is under attack.

In recent months, Republican Senators and state legislators have sought the public spotlight by calling for an end to the amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. If a child’s parents are not documented, they shout, that child should not be allowed to be a citizen. If they had their way, they would roll back a U.S. Supreme Court decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, decided more than a century ago.

If this is what the enemies of the 14th Amendment are doing in the spotlight, imagine what they are doing behind the scenes to eviscerate the measure. Those who want to turn the clock back on civil rights also are trying to undo the Amendment’s Equal Protection clause, making it virtually impossible for victims of discrimination to find justice in our courts. Read more.

“Under the guise of homeland security, a member of the United States Congress is holding hearings that are intended to demonize entire communities of American Muslims,” said Eva Paterson, president of Equal Justice Society. “This sort of political farce is simply unacceptable. At a time when 25 percent of American children are living in poverty; when millions of people have lost their homes because of the recklessness of unregulated markets; when our democracy is being sold to the highest bidder, there are better uses of resources and time for our elected officials.”

“In objecting to these hearings, we are taking a stand against an effort that we fear will fan the flames of bigotry and hate against American Muslims,” Paterson added. “Have you no shame, Congressman King?”

The letter, signed by 55 organizations representing a wide range of constituencies, states that the hearings “will serve to further promote the demonization and scapegoating of millions of American Muslims, while providing little valuable insight into the prevention of domestic terrorism.” Click here to read the letter.

A recent decision handed down by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals raises this important question: Can victims of contemporary forms of discrimination and disparity find justice in our courts?

The court ruling came in the case of Sylvia Darensburg, an African-American mother of three who lives in East Oakland. Every day, along with tens of thousands of low-income African-American, Asian and Latino bus riders in the Bay Area, Sylvia experiences the reality of transit inequality.

According to the case, Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Sylvia relies on the AC Transit bus system as her primary means of transportation to her job during the day and to college classes at night. She endures long waits for the two buses she needs to take, with each trip taking an hour or more each way. On her way home at night, she has to walk 12 blocks from the nearest bus stop in her neighborhood.

Sylvia is not alone in making such an arduous journey—almost 80 percent of AC Transit riders are people of color, and over 70 percent have incomes below $30,000. Nearly 60 percent are entirely dependent on public transit. Click here to read the article.

On March 29, the Court will conduct a limited review of the Ninth Circuit’s order upholding class certification in this case, which alleges sex discrimination in Wal-Mart’s pay, promotions, and other employment practices. At issue in Dukes is whether hundreds of thousands of female Wal-Mart employees can collectively seek an injunction and lost pay against the store. Four lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc, have upheld plaintiffs’ class certification, finding that they presented sufficient evidence of gender discrimination, and that Wal-Mart has failed to address this discrimination, despite being well aware of its presence. Now, the Supreme Court will decide whether plaintiffs can finally have their day in court.

The brief takes issue with Wal-Mart’s asserted legal standard, which would require the Court to establish a new and highly restrictive standard for certifying claims involving subjective or discretionary employment practices, such as those at issue in this case. Applying a heightened legal standard to cases that involve subjective decision-making is at odds with core Title VII enforcement principles, and would restrict employees’ ability to seek redress for valid claims involving discriminatory employment policies. Moreover, such a standard would reduce employer incentives to adopt practices that counteract or minimize bias in pay, promotion and other employment decisions. The brief underscores the reality that to deny plaintiffs their day in court would have far-reaching, negative consequences for future victims of systemic and structural race- or gender-based discrimination. Read the PDF of the brief.