On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous — yes, a unanimous decision — in the case of Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that strikes at the heart of the radical left’s identity politics and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) agenda.
In so doing , the court provides a strong legal foundation for President Trump’s, Executive Order 14173, to restore merit-based opportunity and end illegal DEI discrimination.
The radical left has long sought to use DEI to justify reverse discrimination against so-called "majority group" plaintiffs — typically straight, white males — in college admissions, internships, scholarships, job opportunities and promotions, research grants, and the list goes on.
And this agenda has been enabled by lower courts imposing a heightened evidentiary burden for these majority group plaintiffs in discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act — something Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion describes as the "product of improper judicial lawmaking" — making it nearly impossible for majority groups to prevail in reverse discrimination cases.
Now, the high court says no more as it rejects that improper super evidentiary standard holding that all individuals are equally protected from discrimination, regardless of their group identity.
In this case, involving a straight woman’s lawsuit against her employer, she alleges her employer denied her a promotion in favor of a gay woman, and later demoted her in favor of a gay man filling her role.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her opinion for the court, wrote:
"… Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
"… By establishing the same protections for every "individual" — without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone."
In short, Ames makes it clear that Title VII bars discrimination regardless of a person’s identity characteristics. That includes prohibiting reverse discrimination against "majority" groups to promote a DEI agenda based on racial and other preferences.
Thus, Ames directly aligns with the President’s DEI Executive Order and the U.S. Department of Justice’s focus on ending illegal DEI discrimination.
Specifically, U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in her Memorandum dated Feb. 5, 2025, committed theU.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to "investigate, eliminate and penalize [DEI] preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities . . . that discriminate, exclude, or divide individuals based on race or sex."
The goal?
According to the DOJ (Office of the Attorney General) memorandum, it's to: "fulfill the Nation's promise of equality for all Americans."
The Supreme Court in Ames took a huge step toward fulfilling that promise.
Mike Clancy was a Republican candidate for Congress in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District. He is a lawyer and member of The Federalist Society. Mr. Clancy provides incisive, analytical commentary on political and constitutional law issues and is a frequent guest on political news programs. He graduated from George Washington University Law School and Notre Dame. Read More Mike Clancy — Here.
Twitter: @MikeClancyVA.