Tracking major decisions and active cases involving equal protection and race-based government action. Court Watch distinguishes final rulings from preliminary orders and pending allegations. Last updated September 2026.
California Civil Rights Department v. Tesla — Trial Began September 21, 2026
The California Civil Rights Department alleges that Tesla allowed pervasive racial harassment against Black employees at its Fremont factory and failed to prevent or correct it. The agency also alleges discriminatory pay and promotion practices. Tesla denies wrongdoing, says it does not tolerate discrimination, and says it has fired employees found to have engaged in misconduct.
Judge Peter Borkon is conducting a bench trial in Alameda County Superior Court. The claims remain allegations: no court has determined that Tesla is liable. The trial is scheduled to run through October 30, 2026.
Read the California Civil Rights Department case update | Read Reuters coverage | Read The Guardian coverage
Louisiana v. Callais — Decided April 29, 2026
The Supreme Court held that Louisiana’s SB8 congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Because Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act did not require the additional majority-minority district at issue, the state lacked a compelling interest for its race-predominant map. The ruling confirms that Voting Rights Act compliance can justify consideration of race only when the statute actually requires the remedy and the map is narrowly tailored.
Read the Supreme Court opinion | Read our analysis
Malliotakis v. Williams — Stay Granted March 2, 2026
The Supreme Court stayed a New York state-court order requiring a new congressional district designed to enable minority voters to elect their preferred candidate. Justice Alito’s concurrence described the order as expressly race-based. A stay is not a final merits decision; it preserves the existing situation while litigation continues.
Read the Supreme Court order and concurrence
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services — Decided June 5, 2025
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected a rule that required plaintiffs from a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden in Title VII cases. The Court held that the statute’s text applies the same standard to every individual, without creating separate proof rules based on group membership.
Read the Supreme Court opinion
EEOC v. The New York Times Company — Pending
The EEOC alleges that the company denied a promotion to a White male employee because of race and sex. The case is pending in the Southern District of New York, No. 1:26-cv-03704. No court has yet determined whether the allegations are true.
Read the EEOC announcement | Read our case summary
How to Read Court Watch
Decided means a court issued a ruling. Pending means claims remain unresolved. Stay means a court temporarily paused or preserved a legal position; it does not necessarily decide the merits. Court filings contain allegations unless and until established by evidence, settlement, or judgment.
September 25, 2026 — Supreme Court temporarily restores expanded voter-citizenship verification system
Status: Emergency 6–3 stay; not a final ruling on the merits. The underlying appeal continues.
The Supreme Court stayed a lower-court order that had blocked the expanded Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, system. State and local authorities may use Social Security and immigration records for citizenship checks while the litigation proceeds.
Government’s position: The Department of Homeland Security says the modified system helps prevent noncitizen voting and protect election integrity.
Opposing position: The League of Women Voters argues that inaccurate or outdated records could wrongly flag eligible citizens, particularly recently naturalized voters. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, cited privacy concerns and instances in which citizens were required to prove their eligibility.
Procedural status: The stay remains in effect through the D.C. Circuit appeal and any timely petition to the Supreme Court. The order does not decide whether the expanded system is lawful.
Sources: Supreme Court order and dissent; official docket, Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters.