2007 Supreme Court term

CBOCS West v. Humphries (2/20/08)

Dockets 06-1431Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

According to United States (amicus), according to United States (amicus), the United States filed an amicus brief supporting the respondent.

According to CBOCS West, Inc., according to CBOCS West, Inc., the petitioner argued that Section 1981 does not contain a separate cause of action for retaliation.

Background and question before the Court

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

What each side argues

Petitioner (CBOCS West, Inc.)

According to CBOCS West, Inc., according to CBOCS West, Inc., cBOCS West argues that Section 1981, as interpreted in prior cases, does not provide a separate retaliation claim.

According to Cynthia H. Hyndman, petitioner’s counsel warned that allowing employers to fire employees for bringing Section 1981 suits would let employers evade liability for racial discrimination.

Respondent (Humphries)

According to United States (amicus), according to United States (amicus), the United States, as amicus, supports the respondent’s position.

According to Michael W. Hawkins, respondent’s counsel argued that any amendment to include retaliation should be decided by Congress, not the Court.

What happened at oral argument

According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts inquired which precedent—earlier 1982 interpretation or later law—should guide the Court.

Justice Stevens asked whether consistent appellate decisions before and after the 1991 amendment affect stare decisis.

According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy questioned whether the Court should infer an implied retaliation cause from the statute’s language.

Justice Alito asked what the Court should do if it decides that Sullivan was incorrectly decided.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

According to Cynthia H. Hyndman, if Section 1981 were read to include retaliation, employees could sue employers who fire them for asserting their civil rights.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • 51ec6f9132bb6996b2a0-r1-e7104dd5442e8ccb.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.