➡ Judicial Watch is fighting in court against reparations and discrimination, arguing that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race. They believe that the current government policy in Evanston, which includes payments to certain racial groups, is a clear example of this discrimination. The outcome of a court hearing next week, which could either uphold or dismiss this policy, is eagerly awaited.

The left hates laws against race discrimination, because they see racial discrimination and division as a vehicle for destroying America. It’s not just Washington in which Judicial Watch is where Judicial Watch is active. Whether it’s corruption and abuse, Judicial Watch will sue wherever we can under law. And one of the big things being pushed by the left are reparations, the topic of reparations, where they want to provide monies for perceived wrongs or actual wrongs of the past based on race, which generally is unconstitutional. You can’t give out tax money based on race, based on generalized theories of discrimination in the past.

Or in the case of the reparations movement, where they talk about slavery being the basis for reparations. Now in Evanston, Illinois, they suggested to try to wedge reparations through the system, that alleged discrimination back in the middle of the century was a basis for reparations now, for people only who were black, and who fit other qualifications, but the key one, that they had to be black. And it’s wildly unconstitutional, and we filed a class-action civil rights lawsuit against Evanston. And there’s a big court hearing on it next week, and here’s a description of the lawsuit in one of Judicial Watch’s educational videos.

The left is obsessed with race-based reparations. Leftists use reparations and other handouts to redistribute wealth to favored groups, purportedly to remedy systemic racism and historical inequalities. The nation’s first race-based reparations program was created by the city of Evanston, Illinois. In 2021, the Chicago suburb began earmarking what would become $20 million to pay $25,000 to persons who identify as black or African-American. It began approving cash payments two years later. Called the City of Evanston Local Reparations Restorative Housing Program, the scheme purports to remedy housing discrimination in Evanston and explicitly conditions eligibility on race. Applicants need only show that they identify as black or African-American, and that they or a black or African-American ancestor lived in Evanston at any time between 1919 and 1969, and were at least 18 years old at the time.

Applicants need not prove that they or their ancestors suffered any actual discrimination by Evanston. The children, grandchildren, and even the great-grandchildren of persons who lived in Evanston as many as 106 years ago can receive a payment. Whites, Hispanics, Asians, or anyone identifying as anything other than black or African-American need not apply. Renowned economist Dr. Thomas Sowell describes demands for reparations as a stroke of genius to keep blacks separated from other Americans and an aggrieved constituency to support black leaders in politics, organizations, and movements. In 2024, Judicial Watch filed a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the program on behalf of individuals who would be eligible to receive a $25,000 payment but for their race.

The lawsuit argues that the program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This provision makes treating people differently based on their race presumptively unconstitutional. Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit as a class action because it estimates that there are tens of thousands of persons who, like our clients, would be eligible to participate in the program but for their race. As U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a 2007 case, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating based on race. Evanston’s program discriminates on the basis of race and is unconstitutional as a result.

Judicial Watch’s historic lawsuit not only seeks to stop Evanston’s unconstitutional program but also puts other cities, counties, and states considering reparations programs on notice that race-based programs will not go unchallenged in the courts because no one is above the law. Isn’t that some great work by Judicial Watch? Not only the content of the video but the legal action. I mean, it came as a result, after the result, the lawsuit of significant legal work and investigation. These lawsuits just don’t fall out of trees. It takes a lot of work to get them done. And now we’re at the stage where the city of Evanston is trying to get the case dismissed using what I believe to be specious legal reasons that I’m not going to give the time of day here.

And you lawyers could go look it up on our website if you want to figure out why our case should continue. But it’s a straightforward case. We represent people who otherwise would be able to apply for the $25,000 cash payments but for one reason. They’re not black. And why is it I have to explain why that’s wrong? Why is it Judicial Watch has to explain why that’s wrong in federal court? And so this is an important milestone, at least in this litigation. And the left has been watching our case very carefully because they’re fearful of pursuing other reparations programs if they’re going to get knocked out by the courts.

And so they’ve been looking at this case carefully. And frankly, the fact this case is out there alone has stopped reparations programs from proceeding in most every other jurisdiction in which they’re being considered. It goes as I say in our release, it should go without saying that Evanston’s reparations program is clearly discriminatory and unconstitutional. And our class action lawsuit should proceed. And of course, this isn’t the only DEI critical race theory, woke racist, woke discrimination litigation that we’re pursuing. We’ve successfully battled this issue in court after court. One court, we weren’t successful, but we put it on the radar.

In August of 2022, for instance, we sued Minneapolis Public Schools on behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer over a teacher’s contract that provided discriminatory job protections to certain racial minorities. The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing without deciding whether the racially discriminatory teacher’s contract was unconstitutional. So the liberal Supreme Court shut it down based on standing. But you know what the contract, and it’s still an operation in Minnesota or Minneapolis. It was a key aspect of the union contract the teacher’s union wanted. I think they were striking over it unless they got it.

And what happens is typically in public union, public employee union contracts, there’s job protections for people based on seniority. So normally, people who in a well-run, efficient, normal system or company or entity, if someone gets laid off, you do it based on whether they’re the best person for the employer and whether letting them go would be in the best interest of the company for whatever economic or other reason. And it’s not based on seniority. You’ve been here for 20 years, but if you’re doing a poor job, you’re going to go out if there’s layoffs. But in government, it’s usually senior people are protected almost automatically, especially if there’s a contract involved.

So it’s not unusual to have seniority protections when it comes to layoffs in public employee union contracts, whoever objectionable they are as a public policy. So that’s what they had in this union contract. But on top of that, they had seniority protections unless you were white. So let’s say you were the most senior white person for layoffs. You weren’t necessarily protected. The next person in line who was black would get protected. And when it came for hiring, people back after layoffs, priorities were given to people based on race. Again, you know, supposedly disadvantaged minorities, completely racist.

So you get senior protection from layoffs, seniority protection from layoffs in Minneapolis in the public union, public employee teacher’s union contract. Unless you’re white, you’re skipped over. And then maybe after all the black colleagues of yours are protected, maybe then your seniority kicks in. Insanity. And so I hope the Justice Department takes a look at this because it’s illegal. I mean, we tried to sue to stop it. The left wing Supreme Court of Minnesota didn’t want us to do it. They didn’t want, you know, they came up with a reason to kick our taxpayer client out of court.

So hopefully there’s some follow up. But in Asheville, they had a scholarship fund that they were restricting the blacks only or minorities only. We sued and they stopped it. They settled by stopping it. In California, they had quotas for members of corporations for certain public companies. And the boards would have to have certain quotas. There were two laws passed requiring quotas based on race, sex, LGPQTI standards or whatever the current iteration was at the time. We had two court cases and we won both, shutting down those race, sex, et cetera quotas as being illegal under the California Constitution.

Great victory there. And San Francisco had another literally crazy program that gave money only to black transgendered men. So men presenting themselves as women. I think that was the requirement. But anyway, it was based on race. Yeah. Only it was in favor of black, biological black and Latino males who identify as women. And so what we sued and San Francisco just shut the program down and promised never to start it up again. And that’s how the lawsuit settled. But just, you know, we just have to be ever vigilant because the left hates laws against race discrimination because they see racial discrimination.

And division as a vehicle for destroying America. That’s what it’s about. That’s what reparations are about, in my view. It’s a way of redistributing wealth. It’s warmed over Marxism. You name it. You can, you know, we can I can talk for a long time as to why reparations and left wing woke discrimination are so dangerous to the American way. And Judicial Watch is in federal court, state court, you name it, defending the American way, which is that everyone should be treated based on the fact they’re a citizen and equally and not given special favors because of their race or other immutable characteristics.

It’s called equal protection of the law. The left opposes it. And if you don’t have equal protection of the law, you might as well move to China or Russia. But that’s what they want America to be. That’s what they want America to be. So hearing about on their motion to dismiss next week, I don’t know if the court’s going to rule from the bench or wait to issue an opinion. Typically, from what I recall previously, this judge waits to typically waits to issue an opinion. But it’s going to be interesting next week to see the government come in Evanston to defend woke race discrimination, specifically woke race discrimination.

That’s the government policy in Evanston. In this day and age, they’re discriminating nakedly on the basis of race. Twenty five thousand payment dollar payments to people who meet the fit that various categories, the number one, which the number one category being being black completely outrageous. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. Thank you. [tr:trw].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.