Current budget discussions in Washington are going in the wrong direction and pose a threat to the economy and millions of Americans.

The broad range of groups – which represent persons of color, women, children, low- to moderate-income workers, people with disabilities, consumers, seniors, people of faith, English language learners, LGBT people, educators – endorse the following principles:

• Congress must reject global federal spending caps or entitlement caps.
• Any deficit reduction agreement, as well as any budget enforcement mechanism, must rely at least as much on revenue increases as on spending cuts.
• The burden of deficit reduction must not be borne by low- and moderate-income individuals.
• Congress must reject any effort to impose a Constitutional balanced budget amendment.
• Congress must protect investments that are vital to our nation’s economic advancement.

EJS is a proud member of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. Through advocacy and outreach to targeted constituencies, The Leadership Conference works toward the goal of a more open and just society – an America as good as its ideals.

Read more and see the letter here.

“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.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination by recipients of federal funds. To ensure compliance, all federal agencies have adopted regulations that prohibit two types of racial discrimination: activities that discriminate purposefully on the basis of race, color or national origin (intentional discrimination), and activities that have a discriminatory effect on the basis of race, color, or national origin (disparate impact discrimination).

For over 35 years, civil rights advocates effectively used Title VI regulations to dismantle segregation and uproot discriminatory practices. However, in Alexander v. Sandoval (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals could no longer bring private lawsuits to enforce disparate impact regulations, reasoning that Congress had never expressly created such a “private right of action.” As a result, federally-funded activities that have harmful and disproportionate effect on people of color can only be challenged in court if one can demonstrate intentional discrimination, which is rarely possible.

The Sandoval decision has had a chilling effect on civil rights enforcement, leaving communities of color with limited recourses to challenge decisions that have racially inequitable outcomes. This is particularly true in the area of transportation, where billions of dollars in investments are stake, and where communities of color already suffer from a disproportionate share of transportation-related burdens while lacking access to safe, affordable and reliable transit.

Learn more about this effort