In a landmark 9-0 ruling a few days ago, in a case referred to as “Ames,” the Supreme Court ruled that laws protecting minority groups against workplace discrimination also prevent discrimination against whites, straights, and males. This sets the stage for another important case that has been submitted to the Supreme Court, specifically, a case that would similarly prohibit schools from engaging in reverse discrimination against the children they are supposed to be educating.
The schoolhouse reverse discrimination case I am referring to is “B.W. vs Austin Independent School District.” I wrote about the case two months ago, unaware of the landmark Ames ruling that was about to come down that put an end to reverse discrimination by employers.
As I noted at the time I wrote about B.W. vs AISD, as important as this case is for the country, it’s also a bit personal to me, because the minor - just 12 years old at the time - who was the victim of institutional racial oppression at taxpayer funded public schools, is also the son of personal friends of mine. I became friends with Monte and Brandi Warden not because of politics, but because of shared musical interests.
For a brief recap of what Brooks Warden (“B.W.”
was put through by adults at the Austin Independent School District, here is what I wrote: “Case Filed with Supreme Court Addresses if Civil Rights Act of 1964 Applies to Discrimination Against Whites - and this case is personal” [Buck Throckmorton – 4/11/2025]
Among the abuses claimed by Brooks were a teacher calling him a racial slur; the Principal mocking Brooks and accusing him of listening to Dixie while wearing a headset; the Student Council President circulating a picture of Brooks as a Klansman; another student promising to kill Brooks and all Trump supporters; and a student beating Brooks up in a classroom while the teacher watched. That student is later alleged to have boasted about assaulting Brooks because of his race. As Brooks’ father documented, the Austin Independent School District never disputed or refuted any of this, they just chose to ignore the Wardens’ pleas to make it stop.
When Sean Davis of The Federalist appeared on Fox News a few days ago to talk about the implications of Ames, he also took the opportunity to talk about the importance of Brooks Warden’s case against AISD. An article in The Federalist last week highlighted the argument Mr. Davis made: “SCOTUS Needs to Extend Reverse Discrimination Ban To Schools, Not Just Workplaces” [The Federalist – 6/05/2025]
[Sean] Davis noted that the B.W. case has “the exact same set of facts, not in an employment context, but in an education context.” He added that SCOTUS’s unanimous decision in the Ames case is “a really good sign” that the justices will say, “‘Look, we’re not going to leave this just in the employment context, where we say discrimination is wrong.'”
“They have an opportunity to expand it to education, to every other major institution that says discrimination is discrimination,” Davis said. “You can’t say that it’s OK to discriminate against someone because they’re white, but not OK because they’re black. We all know it’s wrong. It’s common sense that it’s wrong, and it’s nice to finally see the Supreme Court acknowledge in law that basic common sense.”
A video of Sean Davis’ discussion about the Brooks Warden case is embedded in this tweet:
Brooks is being represented by the Center for American Liberty, which was founded by Harmeet Dhillon. This is the same Harmeet Dhillon who is now President Trump’s Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. In response to B.W.’s petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, AISD finally provided a brief in late May, to which the Center for American Liberty provided this powerful reply brief. Here are a few excerpts:
Sadly, AISD’s Response demeans Brooks, recharacterizes the verbal harassment Brooks suffered as him being unable “to listen to other students’ political viewpoints,” and refers to Brooks being called a KKK member as a harmless “joke.” This type of disdain for a former student would ordinarily be beyond the pale. But Brooks is white. These days, it is perfectly acceptable—not only to AISD but to many in our society—to treat white people as “deserving” of differential treatment based on their skin color.
Racism against whites is racism. The difference is the “cultural permission [that exists] to tolerate (if not encourage) racism against whites.” Judicial permission should not follow. This case provides this Court the opportunity to stamp out this disturbing trend. The Court should grant the Petition to decide Title VI’s causation standard and make clear that no form of race-based discrimination will be tolerated in our nation’s schools.
The Supreme Court needs to grant certiorari to B.W. vs Austin ISD, put it on their docket, and finish the work they started with Ames. It’s time to eliminate all government-sanctioned racial discrimination once and for all.
[buck.throckmorton at protonmail dot com]