The DOJ will argue against Byron Allen in Comcast case at the Supreme Court

(The Slice): Byron Allen v. Comcast is headed to the Supreme Court on Nov. 13 with a $20 billion racial bias case and the Trump DOJ is now involved in the action. Allen said Comcast is giving the DOJ 10 minutes to state their views against him before the 9 justices, an action he called "heinous" and "unprecedented." Back in August Allen said, “Donald Trump’s DOJ and Comcast are working together to destroy a civil rights statute in the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The 9th Circuit court of appeals ruled in Allen's favor twice with Comcast and Charter.

He adds: “You have one of the biggest media companies in the world, which has been beating up Donald Trump for racism, and now they are saying, we will work together to maintain institutionalized racism in America, in this Amicus Brief . . .," according to Deadline.

At the heart of the matter is the fact that Comcast airs in many African American areas but refuses to license and distribute Allen's channels in those areas saying his content is low rated and the lawsuit is a "scam." Allen alleges racial bias. The former comedian and actor has made traction in a similar past challenge to Charter Communications citing a 153 year old law, a provision in the 1866 Civil Rights Act in which Section 1981 combined with the 14th Amendment, to protect slaves from discrimination when setting up businesses as a matter of economic inclusion.

This case is significant to rolling back civil rights to before the Civil War, which can impact all African Americans and other minorities. In an interview on the Breakfast Club, the billionaire television executive explained that he intervened when Comcast did not op to carry the Black College Network in partnership with HBCUs. He suspected he would be challenged and was right.

Allen, who is African American, has built a media empire to include ownership of the Weather Channel and several smaller stations. His Entertainment Studios Network produces the bulk of the popular court shows on television including America's Court with Judge Ross, Justice for All with Judge Cristina Pérez, Justice with Judge Mablean, and Supreme Justice with Judge Karen, which are among over 40 syndicated TV series in the company's portfolio.

The Hollywood Reporter says the case could transform the way business discrimination lawsuits are handled. In essence, if the Supreme court rules against Allen, it could force businesses to provide reasons other than racial discrimination to show bias. Unless there is proof that Comcasts' refusal is solely based on race the statute will not apply.

A lower court later said this statute should not have been used to justify the lawsuit, seeming to view it as outdated.

California's Solicitor General Noel Francisco and Assistant AG Joseph Hunt interpret the law to mean that race must be a direct factor for a company to refuse to do business in order to violate the law. They argue: “Although the statute does not expressly describe the necessary causal link between a plaintiff ’s race and a defendant’s refusal to contract, the text is most naturally read to require but-for causation, and background common-law principles confirm that a but-for rule applies.”

Comcast argues they are not discriminating since they already have

“Comcast has an outstanding record of supporting and fostering diverse programming, including programming from African-American owned channels, two more of which we launched earlier this year,” the company said in a statement, adding that it hopes the Supreme Court will bring the case to an end.

Allen's mission is to upset the status quo of television networks that are not doing business with Black America.

See the article below for background on this developing story.