On Thursday, April 28th, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller along ideological lines. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by his fellow conservatives—Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—held that violations of anti-discrimination statutes do not permit emotional distress torts.
Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented. You can read the full ruling here:
Background
Jane Cummings is a deaf-blind femoid who sued her physical therapy provider for intentional infliction of emotional distress for failing to provide an American Sign Language interpreter during her sessions. Cummings' attorney argued that Premier Rehab Keller discriminated against her on the basis of her disability, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed her complaint, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal.
Legal Discussion
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (Spending Clause). This means Congress has the power to set conditions on the disbursement of federal funds. Examples of such "Spending Clause legislation" include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids racial discrimination in federally funded programs. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 forbids sex-based discrimination in federally funded educational programs. Similarly, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act forbids discrimination based on certain protected characteristics in federally funded healthcare programs.
These laws establish a contractual obligation between the recipient of federal funds—schools and universities, contractors, healthcare providers, etc.—and the United States government. To receive government money, the recipient incurs an obligation to not engage in discrimination. However, none of these statutes explicitly granted victims of discrimination a private right of action—that is, the right to enforce these laws by suing recipients of federal funds in civil court.
In Cannon v. University of Chicago, 411 U.S. 677 (1979), the Supreme Court held that even though Spending Clause legislation represented a contract between the recipient and the government (not the victim), the statutes could be interpreted as to grant the victims of discrimination an implied private right of action. Cannon was a massive victory for feminists and their lawyers. Coupled with Title IX, femoids who claimed they were sexually assaulted in schools, colleges, or universities could file lawsuits seeking compensation for so-called "discrimination".
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts and ruled against Cummings, the blind-deaf femoid. While they did not overrule Cannon outright, they narrowed it, ruling that any private right of action implied within Spending Clause legislation (including Title IX) did NOT give victims of discrimination a right to seek compensation for emotional distress.
Guess who's upset? That's right, feminist and SJW lawyers who make a business out of suing educational institutions and corporations on behalf of femoids for "muh discrimination".
View: https://twitter.com/cagoldberglaw/status/1520105131655806978
View: https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1519681630457188353
Amazingly based Supreme Court.
Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented. You can read the full ruling here:
Background
Jane Cummings is a deaf-blind femoid who sued her physical therapy provider for intentional infliction of emotional distress for failing to provide an American Sign Language interpreter during her sessions. Cummings' attorney argued that Premier Rehab Keller discriminated against her on the basis of her disability, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed her complaint, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal.
Legal Discussion
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (Spending Clause). This means Congress has the power to set conditions on the disbursement of federal funds. Examples of such "Spending Clause legislation" include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids racial discrimination in federally funded programs. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 forbids sex-based discrimination in federally funded educational programs. Similarly, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act forbids discrimination based on certain protected characteristics in federally funded healthcare programs.
These laws establish a contractual obligation between the recipient of federal funds—schools and universities, contractors, healthcare providers, etc.—and the United States government. To receive government money, the recipient incurs an obligation to not engage in discrimination. However, none of these statutes explicitly granted victims of discrimination a private right of action—that is, the right to enforce these laws by suing recipients of federal funds in civil court.
In Cannon v. University of Chicago, 411 U.S. 677 (1979), the Supreme Court held that even though Spending Clause legislation represented a contract between the recipient and the government (not the victim), the statutes could be interpreted as to grant the victims of discrimination an implied private right of action. Cannon was a massive victory for feminists and their lawyers. Coupled with Title IX, femoids who claimed they were sexually assaulted in schools, colleges, or universities could file lawsuits seeking compensation for so-called "discrimination".
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts and ruled against Cummings, the blind-deaf femoid. While they did not overrule Cannon outright, they narrowed it, ruling that any private right of action implied within Spending Clause legislation (including Title IX) did NOT give victims of discrimination a right to seek compensation for emotional distress.
Guess who's upset? That's right, feminist and SJW lawyers who make a business out of suing educational institutions and corporations on behalf of femoids for "muh discrimination".
View: https://twitter.com/cagoldberglaw/status/1520105131655806978
View: https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1519681630457188353
Amazingly based Supreme Court.
Last edited:
