I’m not a big fan of Judicial Watch but the complaint looks solid. I have been skeptical of the legality of reparations primarily because there is no solid evidence that the city engaged in housing discrimination.
The historical document put together by the Shorefront guy documents all sorts of discrimination. But none of it was done by the city. Red lining, covenants, etc… didn’t involve the City government. Why should the city pay for someone else’s actions? It makes no sense.
The complaint adds the fact that you don’t even have to document any discrimination to get the money. That seems like it willl be a big problem for the defense.
Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, is there any doubt that they will be eager to take the case and knock down ‘reparations’?
As a lawyer and constitutional nerd, I am very interested to see how the law develops around race-based policies, ie how does the government demonstrate compelling interest. As an Evanstonian (and taxpayer) I groan at the polarization and expense this case will generate. 😫
I was wondering about the costs of litigation. Judicial Watch is a well-funded organization and can tie this case up in the courts, appeals, etc... for as long as it takes to get the case to the Supreme Court.
I am assuming that the City will employ outside counsel to work on this case. That could be a serious expense. Apparently the case has been assigned to Justice John Ness who is a Federalist Society member and Trump nominee. That may not augur well for the City.
Let's hope any legal expenses are coming out of the Reparations fund, rather than the general budget.
The City's lead counsel is not a litigator, so this is 100% going to go to an outside firm and it's going to cost at least six figures, probably more. There are much smaller cases that the city is paying six figures on right now.
I’m not a big fan of Judicial Watch but the complaint looks solid. I have been skeptical of the legality of reparations primarily because there is no solid evidence that the city engaged in housing discrimination.
The historical document put together by the Shorefront guy documents all sorts of discrimination. But none of it was done by the city. Red lining, covenants, etc… didn’t involve the City government. Why should the city pay for someone else’s actions? It makes no sense.
The complaint adds the fact that you don’t even have to document any discrimination to get the money. That seems like it willl be a big problem for the defense.
Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, is there any doubt that they will be eager to take the case and knock down ‘reparations’?
Oh man I have learned so much about this fund in the last couple hours. Stay tuned. The whole thing is a house of cards
As a lawyer and constitutional nerd, I am very interested to see how the law develops around race-based policies, ie how does the government demonstrate compelling interest. As an Evanstonian (and taxpayer) I groan at the polarization and expense this case will generate. 😫
I was wondering about the costs of litigation. Judicial Watch is a well-funded organization and can tie this case up in the courts, appeals, etc... for as long as it takes to get the case to the Supreme Court.
I am assuming that the City will employ outside counsel to work on this case. That could be a serious expense. Apparently the case has been assigned to Justice John Ness who is a Federalist Society member and Trump nominee. That may not augur well for the City.
Let's hope any legal expenses are coming out of the Reparations fund, rather than the general budget.
The City's lead counsel is not a litigator, so this is 100% going to go to an outside firm and it's going to cost at least six figures, probably more. There are much smaller cases that the city is paying six figures on right now.