The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
Do No Harm v. Lee
Overview
Plaintiff challenges a Tennessee law requiring the Governor, when making appointments to the Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners, to “strive to ensure . . . that at least one person serving on the board is a member of a racial minority.”
Details
The district court dismissed the case on standing grounds, concluding that Plaintiff had not shown that any specific person associated with Do No Harm would be harmed by the law. Plaintiff has appealed, asking the Court of Appeals to review and overturn the lower court's decision. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the lower court erred in dismissing the case and contends that its members have standing. They claim that the members have standing because they were harmed by the "racial quota," which limits their opportunity to be considered for all board seats compared to racially marginalized groups.
Court
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Status
Filed September 05, 2024 | Ongoing
Relevant Law
Equal Protection ClauseTopic
Government programsLitigation History
Significance
This case is an example of the far-reaching impact of the Supreme Court's Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) decision, as plaintiffs are challenging many race-conscious requirements in the public sector.