Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media
Term: 2019
Important Dates
Argument: November 13, 2019
Decided: March 23, 2020
Outcome
Vacated and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 13, 2019, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case concerned race discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. It came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The court vacated and remanded the 9th Circuit's decision in a unanimous ruling, holding 42 U.S.C. § 1981 does not provide an exception to the but-for legal principle, in which a plaintiff must prove that his or her injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's illegal conduct. In other words, African American-owned television network operator Entertainment Studios must plead and prove that Comcast Corporation would have acted differently if Entertainment Studios were not owned by African-Americans.[1] Click here for more information.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Entertainment Studios, an African American-owned television network operator, sued Comcast Corporation, alleging Comcast refused to contract with Entertainment Studios because of race. Entertainment Studios claimed Comcast violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Central District of California dismissed Entertainment Studio's claims. The 9th Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's ruling.[2]
  • The issue: Does a claim of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 fail in the absence of but-for causation?[3]
  • The outcome: The court vacated and remanded the 9th Circuit's decision in a unanimous ruling, holding 42 U.S.C. § 1981 does not provide an exception to the but-for legal principle, in which a plaintiff must prove that his or her injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's illegal conduct. In other words, African American-owned television network operator Entertainment Studios must plead and prove that Comcast Corporation would have acted differently if Entertainment Studios were not owned by African-Americans.[1]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • March 23, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the 9th Circuit's ruling.
    • November 13, 2019: Oral argument
    • June 10, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • March 8, 2019: Comcast Corporation filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • February 4, 2019: The 9th Circuit denied rehearing en banc.
    • November 19, 2018: The 9th Circuit reversed the Central District of California's judgment.

    Background

    Entertainment Studios, an African American-owned television network operator owned by Byron Allen, unsuccessfully sought to contract with Comcast Corporation (Comcast) to carry and distribute Entertainment Studio's programming. Entertainment Studios filed charges, claiming Comcast's refusal to contract was racially motivated and violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981.[2]

    The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Entertainment Studio's claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed and remanded the district court, arguing "we can plausibly infer that Entertainment Studios experienced disparate treatment due to race and was thus denied the same right to contract as a white-owned company, which violates § 1981."[2]

    Comcast petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition on June 10, 2019.

    42 U.S.C. § 1981

    Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1981(a) (42 U.S.C. § 1981(a)) provides:[4]

    “ All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.[5] ”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

    Questions presented:
    • Does a claim of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 fail in the absence of but-for causation?[3]

    Outcome

    In a 9-0 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court held 42 U.S.C. § 1981 does not provide an exception to but-for legal principle, in which a plaintiff must prove that his or her injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's illegal conduct.[1]

    Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion of the court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.[1]

    Opinion

    In torts law, a plaintiff must prove that his or her injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's illegal conduct. In his opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote that 42 U. S. C. §1981 does not provide an exception to the but-for legal principle.[1]

    In his opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:

    “ Taken collectively, clues from the statute’s text, its history, and our precedent persuade us that §1981 follows the general rule. Here, a plaintiff bears the burden of showing that race was a but-for cause of its injury. And, while the materials the plaintiff can rely on to show causation may change as a lawsuit progresses from filing to judgment, the burden itself remains constant. [5] ”

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion. Ginsburg wrote that she disagreed with Comcast's interpretation of 42 U. S. C. §1981's scope:[1]

    “ Under Comcast’s view, §1981 countenances racial discrimination so long as it occurs in advance of the final contract-formation decision. ... That view cannot be squared with the statute. ... Far from confining §1981’s guarantee to discrete moments, the language of the statute covers the entirety of the contracting process. [5] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]


    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Supreme Court of the United States, Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American Owned Media, decided March 23, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, National Association of African American-Owned Media; Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc. v. Comcast Corporation, decided November 19, 2018
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Questions presented: 18-1171 Comcast Corporation v. National Association of African American-Owned Media and Entertainment Studies Networks, Inc.," accessed June 11, 2019
    4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Petition for a writ of certiorari," March 8, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ The Supreme Court of the United States, "Comcast Corp. v. National Ass. of African American-Owned Media," argued November 13, 2019
    7. ↑ The Supreme Court of the United States, "Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media," argued November 13, 2019
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Comcast_Corp._v._National_Association_of_African_American-Owned_Media&oldid=9117152"