I get to talk about the presidential debate. I get to talk about cleaning up voter rolls, and I get to talk about this next topic, which is in Minnesota. Minneapolis had a contract with their teachers that essentially required them to fire white people ahead of racial minorities if it came to layoffs. And if it came to rehires. Racial minorities got first dibs on any rehires. It normally is first in, first out.

The more senior people will get protected from layoffs unless. So if you were a more junior person, you were more subject to a layoff. But unless you were a minority, you got skipped over. Blatant racial discrimination. That’s anti constitutional, a violation of virtually every civil rights law under the sun. But signed by Minneapolis with the teachers union there. And judicial watch sued to try to overturn it. Under the theory of taxpayer standing, we represented a taxpayer who is aggrieved.

Taxpayer standing allows taxpayers to challenge the illegal expenditure of tax dollars. Certainly spending money, enforcing and promoting and enabling this contract, this discriminatory contract is outside the law. And unfortunately, the lower court judge initially found that we didn’t have taxpayer standing and it seemed to me a widely incorrect decision. So we appealed it, not because it seemed to me an incorrect decision, but also seemed incorrect to our lawyers.

So Michael Pikesha, who’s leading our team, appealed it on behalf of our taxpayer client. The county district court had dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that judicial watches taxpayer client lacked standing and that her claims were not ripe. I guess the thinking was, unless someone gets fired or victimized, then it becomes ripe. And that was not the law. We appealed, and on December 4, the Minnesota Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s decision, ruling that Judicial Watch’s client does not have stand, that does have standing, excuse me, does have standing as a taxpayer who helps fund Minneapolis public schools through property taxes.

And her claims are ripe because the lawsuit alleges an actual future controversy using public funds. So we filed this lawsuit back in August of 2022, and there was a spate of media around it. And I think we have some media clips talking about the issue, some fairly, some not fairly, but let’s play that now. Sean, go ahead. In the event of layoffs, white teachers have to be fired first, regardless of seniority or performance.

It’s kind of like racism, right? The union movement and too much of the left that used to, in my view, support laws that prohibited racial discrimination are now embracing the exact opposite. Already the policy is being challenged in court by a conservative leaning government watchdog group. It was an in your face attack on the rule of law here, especially in the area of racial discrimination. Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Minnesota taxpayer claiming the contract requires administrators to make hiring and firing decisions based on race when it comes to layoffs or potential layoffs.

In this teachers union contract, if you’re black, your name is skipped and the next non minority gets laid off. And while on the back end, if you get rehired and you’re a non minority, your name is skipped and the next black senior person gets hired. I don’t understand why this is even a debate. One of the key words used in the contract is the word underrepresented. The union president did say, though, that white educators could fall under this category under certain circumstances.

Does that make a difference? This section of the contract references teachers of color. So if they want to litigate what they mean by that, that’s what the courts are for. While the policy does not specifically mention the words race or ethnicity, Fitton argues the title of the heading protections for educators of color makes it plain, I want you to do the mirror image of that. The contract says protecting white teachers, and then they have language that is seemingly neutral in how they’re going to affect that.

Do you think a court’s going to say that’s not race discrimination? I don’t buy it. So that was my interview on Nightline. That was not a pleasant interview. I have to tell you what goes on behind the scenes that I really didn’t even want to do the interview because it was Nightline. I didn’t think we were going to get a fair shake, but you can see that I did get to at least say a good part of what we needed to say.

They ask you the same question a dozen times to get the best response from their perspective and usually the worst response from my perspective. So what happens is I don’t know about you, but my guess is most people would, after being asked the same question a dozen times, kind of get a little ticked, right? And that’s what they’re going for. But you can see what the issue is.

I can’t believe we’re having to sue over this. I just can’t believe it. I really can’t believe it. And this is what our lawsuit states. Among other things, the contract provides preferences, protections, and privileges for the Minneapolis public schools, teachers of certain races and ethnicities under a section entitled, as I noted in the Nightline piece, protections for educators of color. There is no similar provision covering educators who are not of color.

Under the contract, teachers of color are exempt from defendants seniority based layoffs and reassignments, which means when layoffs or reassignments occur, the next senior teacher who is not of color would be laid off or reassigned. In addition, the contract mandates the defendant reinstate teachers of color over more senior teachers who aren’t of color. Upon information and belief prior to the contract, teachers were laid off or reassigned in order of seniority, with the least senior teacher laid off or reassigned first without regard to race or ethnicity.

Similarly, teachers were reinstated in order of seniority, with the more senior teachers reinstated first without regard to race or ethnicity. Article 15s, which is the contract section, preferences, protections, and privileges for certain public school teachers on the basis of race and ethnicity, violates Minnesota’s equal protection guarantee. This is a state claim, so we’re bringing it under state law, which states that no member of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any rights, any of the rights or privileges secured to any other citizen, to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

And that quotes the Constitution of Minnesota. Article one, section two, the Equal Protection guarantee, is analyzed under the same principles and mandate as the equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution. So here you have this teachers union. They went on strike in part for this provision, by the way. So this was something that was central to their settling the strike, this contract position, and it’s still in effect.

And now this case proceeds to discovery. What does discovery mean? It means that we’ll be able to gather evidence and testimony. It’s a big court victory for taxpayers who are outraged that Minneapolis school system, they would engage in blatant race discrimination in employing teachers. And of course, we’re going to move with all due speed to get to that discovery, get that evidence. We want to shut down through this lawsuit the extreme leftist attack on the bedrock constitutional principle that no one can be denied equal protection under the law on account of race.

So there you have it. I shouldn’t say it’s a great lawsuit. It’s an important lawsuit that’s smart and effective in terms of getting this policy overturned. If the law and the facts prevail, in my view. And the court, in response to hit’s decision being vacated and remanded back, he set a hearing. I think it’s next week, if I recall correctly. So the court’s moving quickly. But this contract is an abomination unto law.

It’s racially divisive, viciously so. And it highlights how this critical race theory, this embrace of racialism, has resulted in a complete rejection of our constitutional principles. The idea that the constitution protects you from being punished based on your race is in the 14th amendment. And obviously, we have federal civil rights laws and similar state laws that protect you as well. And the left is rejecting all that they want, racism.

They’re embracing this racialism. I sometimes call it racialism, and I hesitate to use it because I think it minimizes some of what they support. Race conscious, that’s another way of talking about it. And so we hope to succeed here. Get more information of how this came to be and end it. That’s the goal here, to stop it. Now, we previously stopped similar activity in California. They had regulations that they were imposing on California private boards, corporate boards requiring quotas based on gender, race, ethnicity, LGBTQ status.

And the court said that’s violation of California constitution. I mean, these were two separate California judges and liberal California who agreed with judicial watches lawsuits in that regard. And we won. And of course, the other side’s appealed it, but in the know, you can’t discriminate, as California wants you to do, to advance their radical leftist agenda. I mean, this is why, when I say judicial watch is one of the country’s most important civil rights institutions and organizations, I mean it.

The left has abandoned civil rights to the degree they have seriously supported it in the past. And I could bend your ear for another 20 minutes on that, but I won’t. But a great victory in Minnesota. Congratulations to our lawyer. I appreciate our taxpayers standing with us in this regard. Another important lawsuit and historic lawsuit against the radical left that wants to destroy America through racial division and strife.

Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below,.