From Monday's decision by Judge Trevor McFadden (D.D.C.) in Sumrall v. Ali:
Plaintiff Kimmara Sumrall and Defendant Janine Ali frequently attend protests about the war in Gaza. The problem is that they are on opposite sides. Last fall, Sumrall proudly displayed her Jewish heritage at a protest by tying an Israeli flag around her neck. She alleges that Ali approached her from behind and yanked it, choking her. "If speech provokes wrongful acts on the part of hecklers, the government must deal with those wrongful acts directly." Sumrall asks for a modest stay-away order against Ali so that she feels comfortable continuing to attend pro-Israel protests and counter-protests. The Court grants her preliminary injunction request….
Sumrall has shown that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim. The statute declares:
"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens …." …
The parties contest (1) whether Ali purposefully discriminated against Sumrall and (2) whether that action deprived her of the "equal benefit of all laws" "for the security of persons." Neither side questions whether Sumrall is part of a racial minority within the meaning of the statute. See Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb (1987) (holding that Jews are a racial minority protected by § 1981). The Court takes each dispute in turn.
