Whether a plaintiff can state a claim for racial harassment under Title VI even if the 'primary impetus' for the harassment was the plaintiff's political views

When Brooks Warden (B.W.) was in middle school in the Austin Independent School District, he wore a MAGA hat on a school field trip. This innocent act triggered a years-long campaign of bullying and harassment against him based on his race and political views by both his classmates and teachers. Brooks is a white, Christian male whose former school district is predominantly Hispanic. Once his teachers and peers found out he supported President Trump, he became a target. Brooks sued for racial harassment under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court dismissed the complaint, and a Fifth Circuit panel affirmed because, in its view, Brooks did not plausibly allege the harassment was due to his race as opposed to his political views. The Fifth Circuit granted en banc review, and the full court divided evenly, resulting in affirmance. Judge Richman concluded in a concurrence that Brooks failed to state a Title VI claim because the “primary impetus” for most of the harassment against him was his political views and not his race. In separate dissents, Chief Judge Elrod and Judge Ho concluded the case should proceed because Brooks plausibly alleged race was one reason for the harassment, in addition to his political views. The question presented is: Whether a plaintiff can state a claim for racial harassment under Title VI even if the “primary impetus” for the harassment was the plaintiff’s political views.