Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Judicial Watch and Daily Caller Suing Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot for Racial Discrimination

Judicial Watch and Daily Caller Suing Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot for Racial Discrimination

“It’s absurd that an elected official believes she can discriminate on the basis of race”

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1287428717728247808

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot recently announced she would only give one-on-one interviews to black or brown journalists. A white reporter at the Daily Caller asked her for an interview, and her office blew him off.

Now Judicial Watch filed a civil rights lawsuit on the reporter’s behalf. Outstanding.

Make the left live by their own rules.

From Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch Files Civil Rights Lawsuit for Daily Caller News Foundation and Reporter against Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot for Racial Discrimination

Judicial Watch today filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation and reporter Thomas Catenacci against Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot for violating their First Amendment Rights and Catenacci’s right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment (Catenacci et al v. Lightfoot (No. 1:21-cv-02852)).

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

On May 18, 2021, Mayor Lightfoot’s office informed multiple reporters that she would grant one-on-one interviews, “only to Black or Brown journalists.” The next day, the mayor released a letter doubling down on her discriminatory policy. Since that time, the Mayor has granted at least one interview request from a self-identified Latino reporter and none to white reporters.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after Catenacci, a white male, emailed Mayor Lightfoot’s office requesting a one-on-one interview with the Mayor. The office never replied to the request or to two additional follow up emails from Catenacci.

The lawsuit alleges Mayor Lightfoot purposefully discriminated against Catenacci, “because of his race by stating that she would only grant interview requests from ‘journalists of color’….”

It should be fun to watch the left defend Lightfoot for discriminating based on race.

Here’s more from the Daily Caller:

“It’s absurd that an elected official believes she can discriminate on the basis of race,” DCNF Editor-in-Chief Ethan Barton said. “Mayor Lightfoot’s decision is clearly blocking press freedom through racial discrimination.”…

“Racial discrimination has no place in America, especially in the halls of government,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Mayor Lightfoot’s admitted policy of race-based discrimination is flagrantly illegal and immoral. Simply put, we’re asking the court to find Mayor Lightfoot’s racist abuse unlawful.”

Catenacci said: “Preventing journalists from doing our jobs in such a blatantly discriminatory way is wrong and does a disservice to our readers who come from all backgrounds. Every journalist and every person who consumes the news should be concerned by Mayor Lightfoot’s actions.”

Ask yourself why Lightfoot even felt comfortable announcing such a policy. Could it be because she knew the vast majority of the media would cover for her?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Diversity [dogma], inequity, and a Rainbow of inclusive exclusion: black, brown, the shredded remains of white, and with progress the “people of Asia” bloc, too. Baby Lives Matter

Lucifer Morningstar | May 28, 2021 at 3:40 pm

Whatever. I’m more than sure any judge considering this lawsuit will dismiss it for some bogus reason. Perhaps the judge will claim the plaintiff(s) have no standing. Or perhaps the judge will determine that laches applies. Or that Mayor Beetlejuice has the right to chose whom she will associate with even if it’s discriminatory. In other words, this lawsuit will be going nowhere fast. Just wonder when the judge will toss it and for what reason.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | May 28, 2021 at 4:52 pm

    “Mayor Beetlejuice has the right to chose whom she will associate with even if it’s discriminatory”

    On a personal level that is true, in her offical capacity it is not true.

Subotai Bahadur | May 28, 2021 at 4:46 pm

LM beat me to this, but if I may expand.

1) The Constitution only applies selectively in Democrat controlled areas, said selection only taking place when it benefits Democrats or those further to the Left or their client groups. Those groups do not have to be citizens.

2) Illinois in general and Chicago in particular epitomize “Democrat Satrapy”. Nothing will be allowed to interfere with the supremacy of the Party or its officials unless it is decided to purge those officials.

3) The suit is filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. I do not know which judge and who appointed him/her/he/she/it, but it is a good working assumption that being on that court means you are quite likely but not certainly part of the Satrapy.

4) Therefore, there will be the interesting legal gymnastics to make the 14th Amendment void when applied to the government and officials of Chicago. Somehow they will functionally allow the political class to be covered by qualified immunity [at the same time they are trying to take it away from cops] and the city to be simultaneously immune.

5) If it goes as expected in 4, higher courts will deny appeals. If it goes according to the Constitution, higher courts will take the case to overturn it.

“something, something, legitimacy”

Subotai Bahadur

    Joey Williams in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | May 28, 2021 at 8:08 pm

    FYI – It’s clear that you made a real effort to be thoughtful and inclusive, but your pronoun list failed to respect binary individuals [now there’s an oxymoron for you!] by omitting “them/they”.

    (I believe that to be effective, parody/satire should be as correct and extreme as possible!)

This woman (or is she a member of a diverse and largely carnivorous group of short-bodied, tailless amphibians composing the order Anura? – she sure looks it) is a moron.

Like Di Blasio of NYC, Garcetti of LA, this dumbass was put in place BECAUSE she is a moron. She’s about as qualfied to govern anything no more than Kamala Harris is qualified to tell jokes,

And the ACLU will be along to lend their support to this fight against a blatant violation of civil liberties any day now.

A…ny …day……now!

daniel_ream | May 28, 2021 at 6:36 pm

Giving personal interviews isn’t an official function of the mayor’s office, so in what way does the Constitution apply? This is no different than the Mayor announcing that henceforth she would only shop at clothing boutiques owned by black or brown proprietors. Racist, certainly, but not unconstitutional.

    caseoftheblues in reply to daniel_ream. | May 28, 2021 at 8:08 pm

    No one has ever accused you of being the sharpest tool in the chest have they….

    henrybowman in reply to daniel_ream. | May 29, 2021 at 12:00 pm

    Do you understand the difference between a personal interview and an official interview?

      Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | May 30, 2021 at 1:16 am

      There is no such thing as an “official interview”. Granting an interview is not part of her job description. It is always, by definition, a personal decision, and no court can order her to grant one that she doesn’t want to.

I’m glad to see people push back and make them defend their stupid ideas. Use the process to punish them even if it gets tossed it’s better than ignoring her.

henrybowman | May 29, 2021 at 11:59 am

The danger of the left constantly repeating nonsense like “the First Amendment doesn’t cover hate speech” and “Blacks can’t be racist” is that they assume the justice system will adhere to their solipsistic nonsense when it’s their butt in the docket.

    Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | May 30, 2021 at 1:22 am

    The first amendment does protect “hate speech”, but it also protects Lightfoot’s right to be interviewed by whomever she likes and not by whomever she doesn’t like.

This couldn’t happen to a nicer person, but the lawsuit has no merit and ought to be dismissed by the first judge who sees it. If it were me I’d dismiss it with sanctions.

The claim that anyone’s first amendment rights were violated is particularly ridiculous. Nobody has a first amendment (or any other amendment) right to be granted an interview. This sounds like the Daily Caller is pushing the old nonsense that the first amendment’s phrase “or of the press” refers to the news industry, and gives participants in that industry a special status and special privileges. This is just a self-aggrandizing lie told by the industry to promote itself and should be resisted by all others.

But anything that gives Lightfoot grief is good by me.

    CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | May 30, 2021 at 10:18 am

    I think the distinction here is granting interviews in an official capacity as Mayor. She could clearly have a no interview policy. That’s fine. What she can’t do, IMO is grant interviews in her official capacity based upon the race of the interviewer.

    Further, she could be opening up basic tort actions. Not familiar with Illinois but tortuous interference doesn’t seem like a huge stretch.

    Two people employed by local Chicago newspaper. Both have beat assignments that overlap on getting responses and interviews from the Mayor. One granted based upon race. One denied based upon race.

    In that set of facts one reporter is specifically harmed by the deliberate racial policy of exclusion. This reporter’s advancement in the profession or even prospects for continued employment is directly harmed. Actionable? Maybe.

    Additionally the indirect effects of the policy impact the rights of the media consumer. Where no reporter qualifies for an interview based upon race then the consumer is denied access to official statements and interviews from the Mayor…. unless they change subscription to an outlet who has a qualifying reporter. Is that actionable.. maybe.

    This is more complex than we might believe. Let’s see how it plays out in court. Judicial rulings and jury decisions are often surprising. I am certainly not going to state with certainty what the results will be.

      Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | May 30, 2021 at 10:46 am

      I think the distinction here is granting interviews in an official capacity as Mayor.

      This is your basic fallacy. There’s no such thing. Granting interviews is something interesting or famous people do, including mayors, but it is not an official function.

      Further, she could be opening up basic tort actions. Not familiar with Illinois but tortuous interference doesn’t seem like a huge stretch.

      Again, not possible. Even if you had an argument, which you don’t, the first amendment would trump it.

      Additionally the indirect effects of the policy impact the rights of the media consumer.

      There are no such rights.

      the consumer is denied access to official statements and interviews from the Mayor

      There’s no restriction on reporting official statements. And there is no right to interviews.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend