A case challenging the constitutionality of a racial quota on the Alabama Real Estate Appraisers Board is over.
All parties involved in the case agreed to a dismissal of the suit with prejudice last week, meaning the plaintiffs cannot bring the case back.
The case arose when the American Alliance for Equal Rights filed suit against Gov. Kay Ivey and the State of Alabama for a provision of the law requiring two racial minorities to be appointed to the board. The plaintiffs said that provision led to discrimination against one of their members, a white woman revealed to be Laura Clark, interim president of the right-wing Alabama Center for Law and Liberty.
Ivey and the state argued that they also believed the language to be unconstitutional, and Ivey has said she would not enforce the requirement — and that, therefore, the case was moot. The Alabama Association of Real Estate Brokers, a trade association and civil rights advocacy organization for Black real estate professionals, intervened in the case, looking to support the language promoting diversity on the state board.
The dismissal of the case means the language will stay, although state leaders still say they won’t enforce the provision.
“This is an important win in a case that has allowed us to demonstrate how important state laws ensuring diversity on state boards are to people in Alabama,” said Brokers Association President Pamela Wyatt. “State boards make decisions that affect all Alabamians and should be reflective of the communities they serve. For the past three decades, this Alabama law has aimed to ensure that state boards reflect the state’s rich diversity, and we are thrilled that this case has been dismissed with prejudice.”
The Brokers Association retained counsel from Democracy Forward, a national nonprofit that has tangled with the Alliance’s other anti-diversity efforts across the country.
“Opponents of civil rights have attempted to undermine equality and civil rights in the shadows in states across our country,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward. “At Democracy Forward, we are committed to exposing these efforts and bringing accountability to attacks on communities and our democracy. This case was an attempt to roll back hard-won actions to advance civil rights and encourage broad participation on public boards. It was our honor to represent our clients to uphold a critical law to address the lasting effects of racial discrimination and exclusion across generations that Alabamians still experience today.”
The dismissal of the case comes after the plaintiffs asked the court to substitute Clark as the named plaintiff in the case rather than the Alliance itself, a request that U.S. District Judge Austin Huffaker Jr. soundly rejected.
The plaintiffs made the request to substitute Clark as the plaintiff on March 19, claiming that the lawsuit had originally been filed with the Alliance as the named party to protect Clark’s anonymity. Once that came into question in the court, Clark and the plaintiffs agreed to revoke her anonymity and Clark has been named in numerous filings.
But the defendants argued, and Huffaker agreed, that the move implies an attempt by the Alliance to avoid a deposition.
“Ms. Clark now wants to be the named Plaintiff because she is ‘no longer anonymous.’ But the Alliance unveiled Ms. Clark over a year ago,” the AAREB argued in opposition to the Alliance’s motion. “The real reason? ‘AAER believes it is no longer … efficient for it to serve as Plaintiff’ because of ‘the other parties’ discovery tactics[.]’ … Those tactics? The Association noticed a run-of-the-mill 30(b)(6) deposition as to the Alliance’s history, purpose, membership, and the decision to bring this lawsuit—topics relevant to its and Ms. Clark’s standing … In other words, this motion’s purpose seems to be to facilitate the Alliance avoiding being deposed.”
Huffaker Jr. agreed in his opinion issued April 17 that “it is easily inferred, as Governor Ivey and the AAREB note, that AAER’s real motive and purpose in seeking this belated substitution is to avoid having to sit for a deposition, which evidences a dilatory motive and bad faith.
“What does appear clear is that AAER declared itself the jockey in a race that it started and has ridden this horse in this manner since February 2024. Clark could have been the jockey from the outset, but AAER chose not to proceed in that manner. Similarly, AAER could have switched riders (i.e., Clark for AAER) well before the amended pleadings deadline. Instead, AAER rode on. It was not until AAREB asked for AAER’s deposition that AAER decided that it wanted off the horse and to change jockeys during the last furlong, so as to avoid giving a deposition.
“The Court will not tolerate such tactics. Justice does not sanction a substitution at this point, especially when undue delay, dilatory motive, prejudice, and bad faith abound. Accordingly, AAER’s motion is due to be denied.”
