Patterson v. McLean Credit Union

Background

The case involves a worker who asked the Court to decide whether the federal civil-rights law, 42 U.S.C. §1981, covers racial discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment, including harassment. The Court restored the case to its calendar and asked the parties to rebrief and reargue whether the Court’s 1976 decision in Runyon v. McCrary — which said §1981 reaches private racial discrimination — should be reconsidered.

Reasoning

The central question the Court asked the parties to address is whether the earlier interpretation of §1981 should be overruled. The per curiam order explains the Court has not overruled Runyon but wants argument because the petitioner seeks a significant expansion of liability under §1981. The Court noted it sometimes asks for reargument on precedent and emphasized that precedent can be revisited when the Justices conclude it is appropriate.

Real world impact

The order does not decide the law on the merits, but it opens the possibility that a long-standing rule protecting people from certain private racial discrimination could be changed. More than a hundred lower-court decisions and multiple subsequent cases have relied on Runyon; reconsideration could unsettle those rulings and create legal uncertainty for employers, private institutions, and people who bring discrimination claims. The reargument itself is a procedural step, not a final change, but it signals that the Court is willing to examine the scope of federal protection against private discrimination.

Dissents or concurrances

Two dissenting Justices warned that reexamining Runyon without the parties’ request threatens public confidence, undermines reliance on civil-rights protections, and is unwise institutional practice.