Comcast Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n of African Am.-Owned Media - 140 S. Ct. 1009 (2020)

Rule:

42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 follows the usual rules, not any exception. To prevail, a plaintiff must initially plead and ultimately prove that, but for race, the plaintiff would not have suffered the loss of a legally protected right.

Facts:

Entertainment Studios Network (ESN), an African-American-owned television-network operator, sought to have cable television conglomerate Comcast Corporation carry its channels. Comcast refused, citing lack of programming demand, bandwidth constraints, and a preference for programming not offered by ESN. ESN and the National Association of African American-Owned Media (collectively, ESN) sued, alleging that Comcast's behavior violated 42 U. S. C. §1981, which guaranteed “all persons the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens.” The District Court dismissed the complaint for failing plausibly to show that, but for racial animus, Comcast would have contracted with ESN. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that ESN needed only to plead facts plausibly showing that race played “some role” in the defendant's decision-making process and that, under this standard, ESN had pleaded a viable claim. Comcast appealed. 

Issue:

In order to plead a viable claim, should a §1981 plaintiff only need to show that race played “some role” in the defendant’s decision-making process? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 followed the usual rules, not any exception. To prevail, a plaintiff had to initially plead and ultimately prove that, but for race, the plaintiff would not have suffered the loss of a legally protected right. A plaintiff bore the burden of showing that race was a but-for cause of its injury. While the materials the plaintiff could rely on to show causation might change as a lawsuit progressed from filing to judgment, the burden itself remained constant. Accordingly, the Court vacated the judgment of court of appeals and remanded the case in order to allow the court the chance to determine the sufficiency of ESN’s pleadings under the correct legal rule in the first instance.