(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that it asked a court to reject a motion by the City of Evanston, IL, to dismiss Judicial Watch’s class action lawsuit on behalf of six individuals over the city’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program which makes $25,000 direct cash 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)).
Judicial Watch alleges in the complaint that the program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In response to the city’s motion to dismiss, Judicial Watch argues that the case should continue to go forward because:
Plaintiffs have alleged all facts necessary to state a timely claim that, but for their race, they are eligible to participate in the program and receive $25,000 direct cash payments. The program’s eligibility requirements are simple, straightforward, and easy to satisfy, and Plaintiffs have alleged that they were and are “ready and able” to satisfy them at all relevant times. They need not allege anything more to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.
***
[T]he program’s use of a race-based eligibility requirement is presumptively unconstitutional, and remedying societal discrimination is not a compelling government interest. Nor has remedying discrimination from as many as 105 years ago or remedying intergenerational discrimination ever been recognized as a compelling government interest. Among the program’s other fatal flaws is that it uses race as a proxy for discrimination without requiring proof of discrimination.
“Evanston’s reparations scheme rejects a colorblind Constitution and unconstitutionally discriminates against anyone who does not identify as Black or African American. The court should allow Judicial Watch’s class action, civil rights lawsuit to move forward,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
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 race, ethnicity and LGBT quotas or corporate boards unconstitutional.
