Crain’s…

A group affiliated with the legal activist behind the successful U.S. Supreme Court challenge to affirmative action in college admissions has sued Illinois over a minority scholarship program for aspiring teachers.

The American Alliance for Equal Rights, founded by lawyer Edward Blum, has sued Gov. JB Pritzker and Kevin Huber, chairman of the Illinois Student Assistance Commission, over the 32-year-old Minority Teachers of Illinois Scholarship Program, which awards as much as $7,500 to qualified minority applicants.

* From the lawsuit…

(T)he Scholarship Program imposes an explicit racial barrier: it is only for students who are American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Students of any other race are excluded.

Such blatant race-based discrimination against individuals who could otherwise contribute to a robust teacher pipeline in Illinois serves no compelling government purpose. It is demeaning, patronizing, un-American, and unconstitutional.

Plaintiff American Alliance for Equal Rights (Alliance) is a nationwide membership organization that is dedicated to eliminating racial distinctions and preferences in America. It has members who are qualified, ready, willing, and able to apply to the Scholarship Program, including Member A: a resident of Illinois and high school senior who plans to become a teacher and who meets each of the eligibility requirements for the Scholarship Program except she is not from a preferred race. Member A would apply to the Scholarship Program by the 2025-2026 academic year deadline of March 31, 2025, but cannot because her race makes her ineligible.

* Back to Crain’s…

Another group founded by Blum, Students for Fair Admissions, was at the center of the legal challenges to race-based admissions at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The Supreme Court in 2022 struck down both programs and largely invalidated the consideration of race as it had been practiced in admissions for more than 50 years. […]

Some legal scholars believe the logic of the Supreme Court’s admissions decision would extend to minority scholarship programs, and some states have moved to end them or open them to all regardless of race.

* Lawsuit…

Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief.

1. A declaration that the racial exclusion in 110 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 947/50 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

2. A permanent prohibitory injunction forbidding the Governor and his agents from enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the racial exclusion in 110 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 947/50;

3. An award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

4. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

* The 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War and was intended to protect the rights of former slaves and rein in the former Confederate states. From the Library of Congress…

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person “life, liberty or property, without due process of law” or to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.

* More background…

* Edward Blum’s crusade against affirmative action used legal strategy of civil rights activists: Blum’s strategy against minority voting protections that started in Texas eventually ended in the 2015 Shelby County v. Holder decision. In Shelby, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And they did it by eliminating the requirement that states with a history of racial disenfranchisement needed federal approval when making changes to voting rules. … From its very start, Southerners fought against the law and spent decades trying to dismantle Section 5, especially because it required direct federal supervision over state and local elections. That day came with the Shelby County v. Holder decision. Blum’s case helped eliminate a major component of the landmark Voting Rights Act – federal oversight – and has since given rise to partisan gerrymandering in the states previously under federal scrutiny for their legacy of discriminatory voting practices.

* SCOTUS was just denied a chance to eliminate ‘race-based funding’ — and ending affirmative action in college admissions had everything to do with it: A venture capital firm founded by Black women kept a case away from the U.S. Supreme Court that could have ended race-based entrepreneurial funding nationwide. The Atlanta-based Fearless Fund settled a lawsuit Wednesday with the American Alliance for Equal Rights — the same conservative advocacy group responsible for bringing the case that ended affirmative action programs in college admissions. Conservative activist Edward Blum, founder of the Alliance, brought a legal challenge against the Fearless Fund, an entrepreneurship funding competition open only to businesses owned by Black women. The program offered $20,000 to each of four winners in an effort to help Black women build growth within the venture capital industry. To be eligible, a business must be at least 50% owned by Black women.

* Founder of grant program slams federal appeals court for eliminating funding for Black women’s businesses: U.S. Circuit Judge Robin Stacie Rosenbaum, a Barack Obama appointee, began a lengthy dissent with a soccer analogy in which she likened the unnamed plaintiffs’ case to faking an injury by “flopping on the field”: “No one doubts the sincerity of an Arsenal (soccer) player’s desire to beat Tottenham. But he can’t be allowed to try to win by flopping on the field, faking an injury near Tottenham’s goal. For those not in the know, the object of flopping is to manufacture a foul that the player hasn’t actually experienced to manipulate the referee into inappropriately exercising his power to award a penalty kick in the box, where it’s likely to result in a goal. Referees’ vigilance prevents players who have a sincere desire to defeat their opponents — but who try to do so through manufactured fouls — from commandeering referees to improperly exercise their adjudicatory authority to award unwarranted penalty kicks.”