Federal Class Action Filed to Confront the Erasure of Black Americans and Their Constitutional Standing
Civic advocate Clyde L. Younger of Watertown has filed a federal class action lawsuit against President Donald J. Trump, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and other federal officials, challenging what he calls a “coordinated federal displacement” of Black Americans under the guise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).
The complaint asserts that federal agencies have reclassified Black Americans into generalized diversity categories, stripping away constitutional protections and weakening access to education, health care, housing, and civic institutions — without due process or public remedy. This reclassification, the suit argues, erases the distinct civic identity of Black Americans and undermines their standing as a people whose labor, leadership, and sacrifice helped build the foundation of this nation.
“This is not just a legal filing — it’s a constitutional reckoning,” said Younger. “We are fighting back against the erasure of Black American history and the dismantling of the institutions we built. Our contributions are not diversity — they are the bedrock of American greatness.”
The urgency of the case was underscored recently, when the Trump administration announced it would cut $22 million in federal grants for schools serving predominantly Black students, declaring such programs unconstitutional. These cuts follow broader efforts to dismantle perceived race-conscious initiatives across education, health, and housing.
The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to halt further displacement, restore constitutional protections, reinstate funding and institutional access for Black-led schools and civic organizations, and affirm public recognition of Black Americans as a distinct civic class entitled to targeted remedy.
Case Number: 1:25-CV-12524
Filed: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Judge Assigned: Hon. Richard G. Stearns
Mr. Younger,
Does this suit relate at all to your earlier suit, addressed here?
https://www.watertownmanews.com/2025/08/08/letter-resident-details-suit-against-paramount-cbs-over-60-minutes-settlement/
What’s the status of that, if I may ask? As for this lawsuit, I’m not sure I agree with you, but need to think it over before commenting. My best wishes to you.
No. Different docket number. Same flawed rationale.
“… Black Americans as a distinct civic class entitled to targeted remedy.” The instant action seeks reparations of a different kind.
Cambridge Dictionary:
“Entitlement
The feeling that you have the right to do or have what you want without having to work for it or deserve it, just because of who you are”
Right.
Mr. Passell,
I have one suit against Paramount Global and the other the other against Donald J. Trump et al. Both are in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, docketed and appointed to a federal judges. I have sent the summons to the respective Defendants. I do not wish to debate the issue; however, without reading the entirety of both complaints your comments are parochial in nature. The Paramount issue relates to the entity that administers our elections. Trump was a citizen just like all of us at the time of the airing of the 60 Minute Broadcast. There are serious Constitutional issues associated with the case and Paramount has four Attorneys assigned to the case. I am Pro se (My own attorney). Why would you need four attorneys against an idividual who is not an attorney and not hired one? The case is not meritless and could have been thrown out of court weeks ago. I do not know how this matter is going to end; however, as a former Public Servant , I do know that Mr. Trump’s comment that he won $16M for us. As to the Suit of Donald J. Trump et al, how you would feel if you were a Black American and after all of the hardship that your people have gone through, the administration is trying to reframe it. Confederate statutes are being restored to their previous placement. I don’t know how you feel it your people are being marginalized. The President is wearing a MAGA/Republican Cap symbolizing Partisan Branding wherein, the Office is entrusted in serving all of us. I could cover other items within the complaint; however, even though I feel I am the least that should be the one to sue – Black Americans are going to have to step up to the plate. Black Americans are being identified as DEI. Anything earned through self achievement is being considered a handout. I respect what I have been accomplished. Everyone and every city in America is not like Watertown, MA.
Since the courts appear to be the only possible place to get justice (on occasion) under MAGA rule, why not try a lawsuit? Trump is now using the killing to Charlie Kirk to impose his agenda of suppression on those who dare to disagree with him. We now have a “martyr” whose death was wrong, but whose life was dedicated to ignorance, hatred, and bigotry. Our President and his minions can joke about and ridicule victims of political violence they don’t like (Melissa Hortman, Gov. Josh Shapiro, Paul Pelosi) and then point a hypocritical finger at those who question the activities of a bigot like Charlie Kirk.
“Trump is now using the killing to Charlie Kirk to impose his agenda”
And you aren’t? Charlie Kirk lived to be questioned. He died for answering them. Gotta love a sentence that reads “whose death was wrong, but”. I had to read it twice to believe my eyes. I don’t believe Mr. Younger’s lawsuit raised Charlie Kirk’s assassination. You did. That was wrong. No buts.
The shooting of Charlie Kirk is becoming the Trump regime’s Reichstag fire. We’ll see if he actually delivers the crackdown on people who disagree with him or it’s just another TACO.
Kirk espoused some pretty odious, hateful and anti-humanitarian positions, so making a martyr out of him is shocking. Remember also that Kirk held the position that shooting deaths were the acceptable cost of 2nd Amendment rights. Little did he know he would become one.
So this is dangerous violence and January 6th was not? The burning of a governor’s residence was not worth notice? The killing of a state Legislator is no big deal? The brutal beating of an 80-something spouse of a Congressperson is a subject of droll humor? As long as they are Democrats, who cares? The hypocrisy is thunderous.
I am not celebrating Kirk’s death, despite his hateful nature. But lionizing such a malignant man give a clear indicator of MAGA’s depravity. No buts.
What’s next? Concentration camps for leftists?
Just for the record, Governor Shapiro’s house was firebombed by a pro-Palestinian nut. And the Reichstag fire was a Nazi stunt from 92 years ago, so completely irrelevant to the actual assassination of a conservative Christian, husband, and father of two, only last week. You have my word that I condemned all the acts of violence you cite—including January 6th, on this site, and let’s not forget Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot—just as I accept that you condemned, though neglected to mention, the two assassination attempts on President Trump; the cold-blooded murder of Brian Thompson; the terrible killing of children in Nashville and Minneapolis; the assassination plot against Justice Kavanaugh; the shooting of Steve Scalise; the murder of two Israeli embassy staffers in D.C., the Molotov cocktail attack on Jews in Boulder, CO; the violent mob attack on Tucker Carlson’s residence when his wife was home alone; the firebombing of Teslas across the country; and all manner of violence and intimidation on college campuses that have left those institutions open to civil rights legal actions. You also have my word that I never wrote a single word after any murder as reprehensible as the many I’ve read here in the last few days. Last word to you. I pray it’s a decent one.
Sorry, but one cannot make a decent human being out of Charlie Kirk, no matter how many words one expends. Conservative–no! Christian–absolutely not in any sense that I would understand it. I doubt that Jesus Christ would have associated with him, given his opinions.
Again, I am not celebrating his shooting, but just pointing out that his opinions were beyond the boundaries of decent debate–full of hatred and hostility. And the Reichstag fire is an apt comparison. It will be used to justify all sorts of repression.
As to Charlie Kirk’s Christianity, I submit the following:
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the land.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the clean in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
–Jesus Christ
“Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
What a lovely tribute to Charlie Kirk. Well said, and thank you.
Sorry but no one believes that Charlie Kirk observed or practiced any of these. Much the opposite. His statements evinced a thorough lack of humanity. Not Christlike by any measure.
But nice try turning reality upside down and inside out.
Josh:
There is no use. The echo chamber has no boundaries, and it will probably censor this as well.
With that, I sign off.
Promise?
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Mark Twain
Seems to me that someone here once said something about name calling. Maybe that it was childish or something like that.
Comments like that reflect more on the person who makes them.
The anger, hatred and hostility is on the surface for all to plainly see.
And I am being called an idiot?
Please debate the issue and not the commenters. Ones that get too personal will not be allowed.
So I am attacked by Josh Passell and his comment stands but my response doesn’t? Wow.
I’ve nothing left to say about Charlie Kirk. If Charlie Breitrose permits it, I am happy to give you the last word.
You literally just gave the last word yourself!
“Too personal”? Ambiguity is not helpful at this point. It’s personal or it isn’t.
And for those of us who see the bias, we understand what “too personal” means.
If a comment is directed at someone and is negative it will likely be modertated.
Dear Mr. Younger,
This recent development is good news for your cause, if bad news for your lawsuit. From the Department of Education (led by Linda McMahon, one of the defendants):
“September 15 — Today, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) announced that it is making historic investments in charter schools, American history and civics programs, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs). These investments will be repurposed from programs that the Department determined are not in the best interest of students and families. The Department is using existing flexibilities in discretionary grant programs to advance President Trump’s priorities and targeting resources toward the most effective interventions to bolster educational outcomes.
“Following the release of the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress scores, which showed dismal educational outcomes across the nation, the Department plans to award grants totaling $500 million for charter schools to support education choice in fiscal year 2025. This marks the largest investment ever in the Charter Schools Program and fulfills a commitment the Department made earlier this year.
“The Department is also making a significant, one-time investment in HBCUs and TCCUs to support the unique and historic contributions of these institutions of higher education. HBCUs and TCCUs will receive an additional $495 million on top of the anticipated FY 2025 investment, an increase of 48.4% percent and 109.3% percent, respectively. In total, HBCUs will receive over $1.34 billion and TCCUs will receive over $108 million from the Department for fiscal year 2025.”
Secretary McMahon ends with language flatteringly similar to yours:
“We are proud to make the largest investment in the Charter Schools Grants Program in the Department’s history, support American history programs that will inspire young people to be active and informed citizens, and recognize Historically Black Colleges and Universities’ and Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities’ historic contributions to improving education and opportunity in our country. The Department has carefully scrutinized our federal grants, ensuring that taxpayers are not funding racially discriminatory programs but those programs which promote merit and excellence in education. The Trump Administration will use every available tool to meaningfully advance educational outcomes and ensure every American has the opportunity to succeed in life.”
That $22 million cut you cite is offset (to say the least) by the additional $495 million—in FY 2025 alone. I hope you agree that’s wonderful news.
Dear sir, from your post doesn’t make financial sense to me. No slight to you intended. I’m sure you are just copy and pasting.
“HBCUs and TCCUs will receive an additional $495 million on top of the anticipated FY 2025 investment, an increase of 48.4% percent and 109.3% percent, respectively”
So this means that if $495 mill is 48.4% more that the budget for FY2025, then the total budget of 2025 should be $1,203 mill. which seems crazy low and Not the “over 1.34 Billion for HBCUs.
Also the “TCCUs will receive over $108 million from the Department for fiscal year 2025.” doesn’t make any sense either, that too is crazy low. Is there a new department of misinformation? That’s seems like where this is coming from.
The number is just way to small.
The FY 2025 Budget was first drafted while Joe Biden was President. I take these revised numbers as increases (totaling half a billion $$) over his initial allocations. However you slice it, half a billion ADDITIONAL funds for HBCUs and TCCUs is a lot of money. And relevant to Mr. Younger’s case.