Patterson v. McLean Credit Union

Background

A worker sued claiming racial discrimination and harassment in the workplace under the federal law known as section 1981, which guarantees equal rights in making and enforcing contracts. The Court restored the case to its calendar and asked the parties to brief and argue a new question: whether the Court should reconsider its prior decision in Runyon v. McCrary that section 1981 reaches private racial discrimination, even though neither side nor the Solicitor General asked the Court to reopen that precedent.

Reasoning

The central question the Court asked for reargument is whether Runyon’s interpretation of section 1981 should be overruled. The per curiam order did not itself overrule Runyon; it simply requested argument because the petitioner’s claims raise difficult questions about expanding liability under section 1981. The order notes the Court has in other cases asked for reargument on major statutory questions, treating reexamination as part of its role in some circumstances.

Real world impact

As written, the order creates immediate uncertainty about whether section 1981 will continue to cover private racial discrimination outside employment or in other settings. If Runyon were reconsidered in a later decision, some people who now rely on section 1981 for protection against private discrimination might lose that specific federal remedy. The present action is procedural — it asks for more briefing and argument, not a final change — so the law could remain the same or be altered after full consideration.

Dissents or concurrances

Two separate dissents, joined by three other Justices, strongly object that the Court should not reach out to reopen Runyon, warning that doing so damages minorities’ faith in stable civil-rights rules and undermines respect for precedent and the adversary process.