Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Penny's avatar

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The historical document put together by the Shorefront guy documents all sorts of discrimination.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’?

Expand full comment
Svetlana's avatar

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. 😫

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts