#NNPA BlackPress

OP-ED: What’s at Stake in Byron Allen’s Supreme Court Showdown with Comcast

NNPA NEWSWIRE — If the Supreme Court gets to decide this case, it seems very likely that – at a minimum – the court will choose the “but for” standard that is currently used in most jurisdictions outside the 9th Circuit. That would be a major setback to the civil rights community’s advocacy for establishing nationwide the 9th Circuit’s broader “motivating factor” standard. It’s even conceivable that this conservative Supreme Court could go even farther, exploiting the facts of Mr. Allen’s private contract claim to justify an even more regressive outcome by applying the “but for” standard in EEO retaliation, fair housing, voting rights, or other claims.

Published

6 years ago

November 13, 2019

Oakland Post

By Maurita Coley, President and CEO of the Multicultural Media, Telecom, and Internet Council (MMTC)

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in a suit between Comcast and Byron Allen, a prominent African American programming executive. What began as a fairly routine television carriage dispute has turned into risky gambit that may give the court’s conservative majority an opportunity to roll back fundamental civil rights protections.

The lawsuit arose out of Comcast’s decision several years ago not to carry several Allen-owned television channels, such as Pets.TV and Recipe.TV. Comcast has argued its rejection of Allen’s channels was purely a business decision, reflecting what it viewed as the channels’ limited audience appeal. Allen then promptly filed a $20 billion lawsuit against Comcast, alleging that the company’s refusal to contract with Allen’s company was racially motivated, in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

District Court Judge Terry Hatter – a well-respected African American judge with an apparently strong record on civil rights – dismissed the case three times, finding that Allen had not established a plausible argument that Comcast would have contracted with his company “but for” Allen’s race.

Allen appealed to the 9th Circuit, which remanded Judge Hatter’s dismissal with a new guideline to the lower court that a plaintiff can state a viable claim under Section 1981 if discriminatory intent plays any role in a defendant’s decision not to contract, regardless of whether race discrimination was a “but for” cause of that decision. Comcast petitioned the Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit’s decision, and the Supreme Court agreed; oral argument is scheduled for Nov. 13, 2019.

Carriage disputes between cable operators like Comcast, and programming content providers like Byron Allen, are exceedingly common. In my more than 30 years in the industry, I’ve represented both sides – networks seeking distribution and distributors seeking content – and in the early days of cable, I even represented minority-owned distributors such as Barden Cablevision of Detroit, and minority-owned programmers such as Black Entertainment Television.

In my experience, this Comcast-Allen case doesn’t fit the usual framework for a race discrimination case. As best I can surmise, Allen’s channels are not ethnically or culturally diverse; he claimed the alleged race discrimination was that, “but for” the fact that his channels are black-owned, his channels would have been carried because Comcast was already carrying similar white-owned food and pet-themed channels. His suit rejected Comcast’s defense that its decision not to carry his channels was not racially motivated, saying that it had other non-racial reasons, such as better ratings, higher-quality programming, or other business considerations for not carrying the channels owned by Allen.

In any event, the parties were not able to resolve their content carriage dispute, and now this case, which started as a private contract dispute, now puts at risk the civil rights enjoyed by all Americans, because a conservative Supreme Court majority hostile to civil rights has a chance to fundamentally re-examine Section 1981. The court will get to decide – not just for this case, but in a precedent that will impact all future discrimination cases – whether a plaintiff must prove that intentional race discrimination was the decisive factor in a decision (the “but for” standard of proof), or whether race just needs to be one factor in the decision (the 9th Circuit’s “mixed motive” standard, which civil rights leaders strongly support).

If the Supreme Court gets to decide this case, it seems very likely that – at a minimum – the court will choose the “but for” standard that is currently used in most jurisdictions outside the 9th Circuit. That would be a major setback to the civil rights community’s advocacy for establishing nationwide the 9th Circuit’s broader “motivating factor” standard. It’s even conceivable that this conservative Supreme Court could go even farther, exploiting the facts of Mr. Allen’s private contract claim to justify an even more regressive outcome by applying the “but for” standard in EEO retaliation, fair housing, voting rights, or other claims.

Civil rights groups such as NAACP have jumped into this case, filing amicus briefs that seek to convince the court not to embrace the “but for” standard. What I suggest now is that the civil rights groups try to persuade both parties to help get us out of this precarious place in history. To do that, it’s essential that Allen withdraw his $20 billion lawsuit, and that Comcast withdraw its petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court — ideally before the Nov. 13, 2019, oral argument or soon after.

Given Allen’s huge success as an African American businessman, these channels cannot be so important to him that it’s worth placing all of our civil rights at risk. Likewise, Comcast, which ranks No. 2 on Fortune’s list of 100 best workplaces for diversity and has one of the strongest records of programming diversity in the industry, should demonstrate those values by withdrawing its petition for Supreme Court review if Allen also agrees to step back from the ledge.

Both parties should close their eyes, take a leap — and hold their noses if they must — but do their part to take this case off the docket of a deeply conservative court. Otherwise we might all find ourselves facing an uncertain future, stripped of key civil rights protections.

No contract or channel is worth the risk.

The op-ed was first published in the Morning Consult on November 13, 2019.

Maurita Coley, a veteran communications attorney and former executive at BET Networks, serves as president and CEO of the Multicultural Media, Telecom, and Internet Council.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

OP-ED: How heavy a burden does a person of color alleging discrimination have to carry to have his day in court?

Don't Miss

As Arguments Begin, Civil Rights Leaders Urge Supreme Court to Uphold One of the Nation’s Oldest Anti-Discrimination Statutes

Oakland Post

2 Comments

#NNPA BlackPress

LIVE from the NMA Convention Raheem DeVaughn Says The Time Is Now: Let’s End HIV in Our Communities #2

Set against the backdrop of the NMA conference, Executive Officers from the National Medical Association, Grammy Award Winning Artist and Advocate Raheem DeVaughn, and Gilead Sciences experts, are holding today an important conversation on HIV prevention and health equity. Black women continue to be disproportionately impacted by HIV despite advances in prevention options. Today’s event […]

Published

2 days ago

February 3, 2026

Oakland Post

Black women continue to be disproportionately impacted by HIV despite advances in prevention options. Today’s event is designed to uplift voices, explore barriers to access, and increase awareness and key updates about PrEP, a proven prevention method that remains underutilized among Black women. This timely gathering will feature voices from across health, media, and advocacy as we break stigma and center equity in HIV prevention.

Additional stats and information to know:

● Black women continue to be disproportionately affected by HIV, with Black women representing more than 50% of new HIV diagnoses among women in the U.S. in 2022, despite comprising just 13% of women in the U.S.

● Women made up only 8% of PrEP users despite representing 19% of all new HIV diagnoses in 2022.

● Gilead Sciences is increasing awareness and addressing stigma by encouraging regular HIV testing and having judgment-free conversations with your healthcare provider about prevention options, including oral PrEP and long-acting injectable PrEP options.

● PrEP is an HIV prevention medication that has been available since 2012.

● Only 1 in 3 people in the U.S. who could benefit from PrEP were prescribed a form of PrEP in 2022.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

TRUMP: “Washington, D.C. is Safe”

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — President Trump, who typically travels with a full contingent of high-level protection, insinuated that he finally felt safe enough to go to dinner in the District of Columbia. “My wife and I went out to dinner last night for the first time in four years,” said the nation’s 47th president.

Published

2 days ago

February 3, 2026

Oakland Post

By Apriil Ryan
BlackPressUSA Washington Bureau Chief and White House Correspondent

“Washington, D.C. is safe,” President Trump declared from the Oval Office today. Those words came while Trump was hosting Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. During the question-and-answer session, which primarily focused on a peace deal in the Russian-Ukrainian war, Trump explained, “You did that in four days.” He was speaking of how fast the National Guard quelled the violence in what was once called Chocolate City.

The President deployed the National Guard to D.C. a week ago, to a city with reduced crime rates over the previous year. Violent crime dropped by 26%, marking the lowest level in 30 years. Homicides also fell by 11%.

President Trump, who typically travels with a full contingent of high-level protection, insinuated that he finally felt safe enough to go to dinner in the District of Columbia. “My wife and I went out to dinner last night for the first time in four years,” said the nation’s 47th president.

Trump reinforced his claim about the newly acquired safety in D.C. by relaying that a friend’s son is attending dinner in D.C., something he would not have done last year.

After the president finished his comments, a reporter/commentator in the room with close connections to Marjorie Taylor Greene jumped into the high-level conversation to affirm the president’s comments, saying, “I walked around yesterday with MTG. If you can walk around D.C. with MTG and not be attacked, this city is safe.”

That reporter was the same person who chastised President Zelenskyy months ago during his first Oval Office meeting with Trump for not wearing a business suit. Zelenskyy, a wartime President, has been clad in less formal attire to reflect the country’s current war stance against Russia.

Without any sourcing, President Trump also said, “People that haven’t gone out to dinner in Washington, D.C., in two years are going out to dinner, and the restaurants the last two days have been busier than they’ve been in a long time.”

The increase in policing in Washington, D.C. is because a 19-year-old former Doge employee was carjacked in the early hours of the morning recently.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

Rising Energy Costs Weigh Heaviest on Black Households

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — For many African American families, the cost of keeping the lights on and homes heated or cooled is not just a monthly bill — it’s a crushing financial burden.

Published

2 days ago

February 3, 2026

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown
Black Press USA Senior National Correspondent

For many African American families, the cost of keeping the lights on and homes heated or cooled is not just a monthly bill — it’s a crushing financial burden.

A new national study from Binghamton University and California State University, San Bernardino, finds that Black households spend a far larger share of their income on energy compared to white households, even when income levels are the same. “We often say that African Americans suffer more, but we often blame it just on income. And the reality is, there is something more there,” study author George Homsy, associate professor at Binghamton University, wrote. “It’s not just because they tend to be poor. There is something that’s putting them at a disadvantage. I think what happened is it happens to be where they live.” The study, published in Energy Research & Social Science, analyzed 65,000 census tracts across the United States. It found that while the average American household spends about 3.2% of income on energy bills, households in the majority African American census tracts spend an average of 5.1%.

Homsy and researcher Ki Eun Kang point to the age and condition of housing stock, along with lower homeownership rates, as key drivers. Their research concludes that “energy burden is not simply a matter of income or energy cost but also race, which might be driven by place.” Older, less energy-efficient housing and high rental rates in Black communities mean residents often cannot make upgrades like improved insulation or new appliances, locking families into higher bills.

Tradeoffs and Health Risks

The consequences go beyond money. Families forced to spend 10% or more of their income on energy — what experts classify as “unmanageable” — may cut back on food, medicine, or other essentials. More than 12 million U.S. households report leaving their homes at unsafe temperatures to reduce costs, while millions more fall behind on utility bills. The health effects are severe. High energy burdens increase risks of asthma, depression, poor sleep, pneumonia, and even premature death. The issue is especially acute for African Americans, who are disproportionately exposed to housing and environmental conditions that amplify these risks.

Washington, D.C.: A Case Study

In Washington, D.C., the problem is particularly stark. A recent analysis by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) shows that SNAP-eligible households spend more than 20% of their income on energy bills. Across the metro area, nearly two-thirds of low-income households devote over 6% of their income to energy, and 40% face what researchers call a “severe financial strain,” paying more than 10%. Pepco, the District’s primary electricity provider, has implemented three consecutive annual rate hikes, pushing the average household bill to $114 per month as of January 2025. Shutoffs have followed — nearly 12,000 customers lost service in 2024, with disconnections doubling after a summer rate hike. Washington Gas has also sought a 12% rate increase and pushed a controversial $215 million pipeline replacement project, rebranded as “District SAFE.” The plan could ultimately cost D.C. households an additional $45,000 each over several decades, or nearly $1,000 annually added to bills.

Historical Roots

Researchers argue that these inequities are not accidental but rooted in history. The ScienceDirect study reveals that African American communities living in formerly redlined neighborhoods continue to face disadvantages today — from poor housing quality to higher climate risks. Homsy says policymakers must make targeted efforts. “It is harder to get to rental units where a lot of poor people live,” he noted. “We need to work harder to get into these communities of color.”