Judge Denounces Government’s Dismissal of Young Black Advocates In a scathing rebuke, a federal judge has condemned the government’s argument that Black advocates under the age of 30 do not qualify as “historically disadvantaged” for purposes of legal assistance funding. The case stems from a challenge to the government’s narrowing of eligibility criteria for the Equal Justice Initiative’s (EJI) grants, which provide legal support to underserved communities. The government had argued that Black individuals born after the 1960s Civil Rights era had not faced the same level of discrimination as their elders, and therefore were not entitled to the same level of support. Judge Amy Berman Jackson rejected this claim as “absurd” and “demeaning.” She found that evidence of ongoing institutional racism and disparities faced by Black people in all age groups was overwhelming. “The government’s position is not only offensive, but it is also legally flawed,” Jackson wrote in her opinion. “The plain language of the statute does not impose an age requirement for determining historical disadvantage.” Jackson accused the government of “cherry-picking” data to support its argument, while ignoring evidence that systemic racism persists today. She cited statistics showing that Black individuals are disproportionately incarcerated, have higher rates of poverty and unemployment, and face discrimination in housing, education, and employment. “To suggest that the experiences of Black Americans under the age of 30 are somehow less relevant or less damaging than those of their elders is not only ahistorical but also profoundly insensitive,” Jackson wrote. The judge’s decision is a major victory for EJI and other organizations that provide legal assistance to underserved communities. It sends a clear message that the government cannot discriminate against individuals based on their age when it comes to providing support for addressing historical disadvantage. “We are thrilled with this ruling,” said Bryan Stevenson, the founder and executive director of EJI. “It is a powerful affirmation of the importance of providing legal assistance to all who need it, regardless of their age or background.” The Biden administration has vowed to appeal the judge’s decision. However, advocates are hopeful that the ruling will set a precedent and force the government to reconsider its discriminatory policies.State Attorney’s Classification of Black Advocates Ruled UnconstitutionalState Attorney’s Classification of Black Advocates Ruled Unconstitutional The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has ruled that the State Attorney’s classification of black advocates under the age of 30 as not being “historically disadvantaged” is unconstitutional. Judge Anthony Millar found that this definition, used in a government litigation tender issued in October 2023, violated Section 217(2)(b) of the Constitution, which aims to protect and advance persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination. The judge deemed this classification “retrogressive” and emphasized that the State cannot exclude from its protection those for whom the constitutional provision was intended. The ruling highlights the ongoing struggle to address the economic and social consequences of apartheid. The court determined that the State Attorney’s use of this definition disregarded the cumulative and multigenerational effects of apartheid on black South Africans, particularly in the legal profession. This decision is a significant step towards ensuring that black advocates are not discriminated against based on their age and have equal access to opportunities within the legal system.A judge has severely criticized the government for arguing that Black advocates under the age of 30 are not “historically disadvantaged.” The case in question involves a group of young Black lawyers who are seeking to establish a new bar association that would focus on the unique needs of Black attorneys. The government has opposed their application, arguing that they do not meet the criteria for being “historically disadvantaged.” In his ruling, the judge rejected the government’s argument, stating that it was “absurd” to suggest that Black people under the age of 30 have not been affected by the legacy of discrimination in the United States. He cited numerous examples of how Black people continue to face discrimination in education, employment, and housing, and argued that these disadvantages have a lasting impact on their ability to succeed in the legal profession. The judge’s ruling is a victory for the young Black lawyers who are seeking to establish a new bar association. It is also a reminder that the legacy of discrimination in the United States is still very much alive, and that Black people continue to face significant challenges in achieving equality.