Brewer Foundation President Joins Northwestern University Counselor Advisory Board
June 17, 2025 — Brewer Foundation President Ian Shaw has been selected to join the Northwestern University Counselor Advisory Board (CAB), an initiative focused on supporting underrepresented student populations and guiding them through the college admissions process.
Hosted by Northwestern’s Office of Undergraduate Admissions, CAB partners with high school counselors and college-access advocates to increase higher education opportunities for students facing systemic barriers. As a member of the program’s second cohort, Shaw will participate in a two-day program on Northwestern’s Evanston campus next spring, where he will collaborate with admissions staff and campus leaders.
In his role at the Brewer Foundation, Shaw oversees the Future Leaders Program (FLP), an academic and leadership development program serving more than 200 students, ages 12 to 18, from urban communities within the Dallas Independent School District (DISD). The FLP provides year-round academic instruction, leadership training, and cultural enrichment to prepare its “future leaders” for success in college and beyond.
Currently, two FLP alumni from the Class of 2023—undergraduates Erica Salazar and Raul Lopez—are enrolled at Northwestern. They will be joined this fall by Lizbeth Ojeda, a 2025 FLP graduate.
“I’m excited to deepen the Brewer Foundation’s partnership with Northwestern University,” Shaw said. “Our commitment to expanding college access for FLP students advances the mission of Northwestern’s CAB initiative. One of the most rewarding aspects of the FLP experience is seeing our graduates go on to attend great universities such as Northwestern and realize their higher education aspirations.”
Plaintiff Files Opposition in Landmark Voting Rights Act Challenge Against Keller ISD
Dallas, Texas…June 13, 2025 – Brewer Storefront filed a federal court brief (“Vallejo’s opposition”) on behalf of Claudio Vallejo – a Hispanic parent in Keller ISD – in opposition to the district’s attempt to dodge a landmark voting rights case.
Vallejo’s case seeks to overhaul the district’s at-large voting system, asserting it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) and the U.S. Constitution. The Storefront is the community service legal affiliate of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors.
Filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, Vallejo’s brief contends that the current election system dilutes the votes of Hispanic and other minority voters, preventing them from electing candidates who represent their interests. Despite the fact that Hispanic students constitute nearly a quarter of the district’s enrollment, not a single Hispanic candidate has been elected to the Board in over two decades.
At the heart of Vallejo’s opposition is a complaint that argues that the so-called “Gingles factors” established by the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court Case Thornburg v. Gingles as a standard to prove a VRA violation are outdated, particularly the requirement that a minority group be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district.
Vallejo argues that the geographic “compactness” requirement for majority-minority districts should not apply outside redistricting cases – particularly when the remedy sought is not the creation of new district lines, but implementation of a cumulative voting system.
This alternative voting system, expressly permitted under the Texas Education Code since 1995, would allow minority voters to elect candidates of their choice by pooling support across geographic lines. Under the cumulative system, a voter may cast the number of votes equal to the number of seats up in an election for one or more candidate in any combination. The candidates receiving the highest number of votes for the open positions are elected.
The filing also outlines predictable educational disparities among student subgroups: only 51% of Hispanic students in KISD met grade-level benchmarks on state exams, compared to 69% of white students. Vallejo’s filing notes the social science data that a lack of representation on the school board contributes to an ongoing failure to address the needs of minority students.
“This case seeks to ensure that the voices of Hispanic voters are heard and accounted for in school board elections,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer Storefront and counsel to Mr. Vallejo. “Cumulative voting offers a constitutionally sound, locally empowered solution that aligns with the values for which the Voting Rights Act was adopted.”
Vallejo’s opposition challenges the district’s reliance on outdated precedent.
The complaint asserts that Gingles should only apply to redistricting cases, and notes that the KISD case is not a redistricting case.
“Gingles should only apply to redistricting cases,” the filing contends. “This is not a redistricting case…cumulative voting would allow minority viewpoints to have a voice in KISD.”
Cumulative voting will give underrepresented groups in KISD greater power to elect candidates aligned with their interests. Such voting systems have been adopted by other local school districts, including Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD.
The legal action includes claims under the 14th and 15th Amendments, alleging that the Board’s continued use of a discriminatory voting system reflects intentional racial bias. Vallejo points to recent actions by the Board – including a now-abandoned plan to split the district along socioeconomic and racial lines – as further evidence of discriminatory intent.
Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the district’s motion to dismiss, allow the case to proceed, and grant appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief to reform the election system.
In requesting that the Court deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Vallejo argues that this case represents a natural evolution of civil rights litigation – one aimed at adapting the Voting Rights Act to a changing America.
“Today’s innovative argument is tomorrow’s binding precedent,” the filing concludes.
About Brewer Storefront
Brewer Storefront is the community-service legal affiliate of the national litigation firm of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors with offices in Dallas and New York. Founded in 1995, the Brewer Storefront tackles local and national issues, providing legal assistance to a wide range of individuals, business and community entities in need.
The Storefront has successfully challenged violations of the Voting Rights Act on behalf of other communities of interest in previous actions. Notably, in 2015, the Storefront settled a lawsuit brought against the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District on behalf of Hispanic voters and a cumulative voting system was established as a result. There are currently two Hispanic trustees on the school district’s board.
The Storefront also successfully resolved Voting Rights Act cases with the Lewisville Independent School District in 2023, Richardson Independent School District in January 2019, and the Grand Prairie Independent School District in 2014. All districts now utilize remodeled voting systems. The Storefront also secured trial victories in Voting Rights Act cases against the Irving Independent School District in 2014, the City of Farmers Branch in 2012, and the City of Irving in 2009. Those lawsuits paved the way for the formation of new voting systems and the election of minority candidates.
Supreme Court Petition Challenges Federal Rule That Denies Civil Rights to Millions of Unpaid Workers
June 6, 2025 — In a direct challenge to what critics call a "legal loophole," through which numerous meritorious claims have fallen, Dr. Cara Wessels Wells petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to extend Title VII protections to unpaid workers – potentially reshaping civil rights law.
Wells, a scientist and entrepreneur, alleges she was subjected to sexual harassment, retaliation, and abrupt exclusion from Texas Tech University’s business accelerator program – where she served as a mentor – after speaking out about the misconduct. The district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled she was not legally an “employee” because her work in 2022 was unpaid.
At the heart of her petition is a challenge to the Fifth Circuit’s application of the “threshold-remuneration” test, a rigid rule that categorically bars unpaid workers from Title VII protection. The petition argues that the rule contradicts both the text and intent of federal civil rights law and is inconsistent with how several other circuits treat unpaid employment relationships.
In the petition, received by the Court on June 4, 2025, Wells warns of the national consequences of the current circuit split:
“An unpaid volunteer firefighter in Tennessee (Sixth Circuit) may be able to prove she is an employee and hold her harasser accountable under Title VII, whereas her counterpart just across state lines in Mississippi (Fifth Circuit) could be categorically denied any recourse... Such an outcome is intolerable under a comprehensive federal civil rights statute and demands this Court’s intervention.”
Brewer partner and lead counsel for Wells, William A. Brewer III, says, “Protection from discrimination in the workplace should not hinge on whether or not you happen to draw a paycheck. The Fifth Circuit has turned Title VII into a privilege for the paid, not a right for the working.”
Wells filed her original complaint in March 2023, claiming she was subjected to years of sexual harassment and degradation at Texas Tech, and then denied compensation and patent royalties to which she was entitled. In the complaint, Wells describes the inner workings of a hierarchical system where TTU professors Dr. Samuel Prien and Dr. Lindsay Penrose allegedly took credit for her work, subjected her to harassment and humiliation, and retaliated when she complained to school leadership. Thereafter, the University shielded the professors from accountability.
While the Second, Fifth, and other circuits require financial compensation as a threshold for employment protection, the Sixth and Ninth Circuits instead apply a common-law agency test, examining the relationship’s totality. Wells' petition urges the Supreme Court to resolve this doctrinal rift and affirm that Title VII’s protections extend to those whose roles may be unpaid but whose labor is real.
Wells’ case is particularly timely given the prevalence of unpaid labor in internships, academic research, startups, and public service. Legal scholars call the remuneration rule “unduly rigid” and warn it leaves millions of non-traditional workers without recourse when harmed.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide later this year whether to take up the case.
Joining Mr. Brewer in representing Wells is Brewer partner Will Brewer IV and attorneys Jed Sexton and Lucia (Lucy) Arbor.
Brewer Firm Announces that Virginia Supreme Court Sides with NRA in High-Stakes Contract Dispute, Rejects Expansion of State Contract Law
May 30, 2025 – New York, New York… In a widely watched contract clash, the Supreme Court of Virginia has delivered a decisive victory for the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) in its dispute with Under Wild Skies, Inc. (UWS).
UWS was the producer of the hunting show Under Wild Skies, which the NRA sponsored for over two decades. The dispute arose after UWS claimed NRA repudiated the contracts and sued for over $20 million. The ruling cements the NRA’s trial win over UWS and affirms longstanding principles of contractual interpretation in the Commonwealth.
The case centered around a failed television sponsorship relationship between the NRA and UWS, which for 26 years produced a hunting-focused show under the same name.
UWS alleged that the NRA’s 2019 request for business information about the success of the show – amidst an internal compliance review (and its subsequent delay in making a scheduled payment) – constituted an anticipatory breach of their agreement. UWS attempted to bolster its case by urging the trial court to instruct the jury on the “doctrine of adequate assurance,” which allows a party to demand confirmation of performance if they suspect the other side might default.
In a decision dated May 29, 2025, the trial court rejected the instruction, the Court of Appeals upheld that decision, and the Supreme Court now affirmed it – definitively stating that the doctrine of adequate assurance is not recognized under Virginia common law. The high court emphasized that the doctrine – originally rooted in the Uniform Commercial Code and later extended in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts – represents a “modern innovation” not adopted by Virginia courts or legislators for general contract disputes.
Writing for the Court, Justice Cleo E. Powell declared that any expansion of Virginia’s contract doctrine is a matter for the legislature not the judiciary. “The decision to adopt a new doctrine applicable to all contractual disputes is a policy decision that is more appropriately left to the legislature,” she wrote.
The ruling has broader implications beyond this case, reaffirming that Virginia courts will not judicially adopt evolving doctrines from other jurisdictions without express legislative direction. It also protects entities like the NRA from facing new legal standards retroactively applied in civil litigation.
“We are pleased the Court affirmed the outcome below,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at the Brewer firm, which represented the NRA in this matter and others through fall 2024.
Last year, the NRA prevailed at trial in a “dissolution lawsuit” brought by the New York Attorney General, and secured a unanimous, 9-0 decision before the U.S. Supreme Court in one of the most closely watched First Amendment cases in the country.
The Court’s refusal to expand the law ensures that contractual obligations in Virginia will continue to be interpreted under traditional principles of clear repudiation and actual breach.
Joining Brewer in representing the NRA were firm partner William A. Brewer IV and Robert H. Cox of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP in Virginia.
New York Law Journal / Albany Times Union Report on Lawsuit Against Former NRA President Oliver North
May 21, 2025 — The New York Law Journal and Albany Times Union report that Brewer client Thomas King, president of the NRA Foundation, has filed a countersuit against former NRA Board President Oliver North. The suit "cites New York’s anti-SLAPP statute that protects New Yorkers from frivolous lawsuits meant to silence whistleblowers."
Filed in the state Supreme Court of Rensselaer County on May 19, 2025, King's lawsuit says he reported "allegations of serious ethics violations by North through the NRA's confidential internal disciplinary process," the Law Journal reports.
”Our client believes Col. North's action in Virginia is a clear abuse of our judicial process — a classic SLAPP lawsuit filed to punish Mr. King for exercising protected rights,” said Svetlana Eisenberg, partner at Brewer and counsel to King. “Thomas King's actions were entirely lawful, rooted in responsible governance and accountability. The lawsuit aims to demonstrate that attempts to suppress whistleblowers through retaliatory litigation violate New York law and threaten the essential principles of transparency and integrity within nonprofit organizations."
To read the Albany Times Union article, click here.
To read the New York Law Journal article, click here.
Statement by William A. Brewer III, Partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, on Supreme Court Hearing Regarding President Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
May 15, 2025 — The U.S. Supreme Court hearing today represented a pivotal moment, not for immigration law but also for the broader issue of judicial power and its proper scope. As counsel deeply involved in constitutional and immigration matters, we closely followed the arguments presented.
On the ultimate efficacy of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14160, the justices appeared skeptical over the order, which seeks to deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. The longstanding precedent set by the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark appeared front of mind for several justices, highlighting significant constitutional concerns with the executive order.
However, it was Justice Sonia Sotomayor's commentary regarding the challenges of eliminating nationwide injunctions that underscored the importance of today’s argument. She noted that the removal of such remedies could inundate courts with countless individual lawsuits. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson further emphasized the risks inherent in reducing nationwide injunctions, potentially undermining the consistency and reliability essential to our legal system.
Conversely, other justices expressed concerns about judicial overreach, specifically through nationwide injunctions issued by federal district courts. Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested class-action lawsuits as preferable alternatives, emphasizing procedural rigor and judicial precision.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised pointed questions regarding the Trump administration’s inconsistent positions on nationwide injunctions versus class-action litigation, highlighting the nuanced challenges in balancing judicial remedies.
The Court’s upcoming decision, expected by late June or early July, carries profound implications. While Trump's executive order seems likely to be invalidated, the broader question of limiting nationwide injunctions may significantly impact future judicial strategies for challenging federal policies.
We at Brewer, through our Storefront affiliate, remain committed to safeguarding constitutional principles, advocating for consistent application of the law, and closely monitoring developments that could reshape judicial authority and executive accountability.
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Reports on North Allegheny High School Competing in IPPF Finals
May 8, 2025 — The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that the North Allegheny High School speech and debate team beat out hundreds of other schools to make it as one of the top eight competitors in the 24th annual Brewer Foundation/NYU International Public Policy Forum Finals (IPPF) held May 3 in New York City.
“Reaching the world finals is incredibly difficult and requires being selected for the Round of 64 and then defeating teams from across the world in single-elimination bouts until reaching the top eight," said debate coach Dominic Moore. "This activity requires high-level research, writing and argumentation skills as each round’s essays are judged by experts.”
The Allegheny team included senior Kelly Tai, junior Samuel Xiao and sophomores Kaartic Muralidharan, Eric Peng and Aayushi Vardhan. The team placed as a Quarterfinalist and won $1,500.
“It’s not just a competition. It’s a proving ground for tomorrow’s policy thinkers and public voices,” said William A. Brewer III, chairman of the Brewer Foundation and founder of the IPPF.
Read more here.
Southlake Style Reports on IPPF Champion Carroll Senior High School Debate Team
May 6, 2025 — Southlake Style reports on Brewer Foundation/NYU International Public Policy Forum (IPPF) World Champion Carroll Senior High's victory in this year's debate competition.
The Dragons won first place at the 24th annual competition, held May 3 in New York. The team took home the “Brewer Cup” and the $10,000 grand prize.
Carroll's winning team of Tanya Kuriakose, Amber Lin, Nether Tummalapalli and Anushka Velala -- coached by Anthony Brown -- defeated DuPont Manual High School of Kentucky in the final round. Lin, a freshman, was awarded the John E. Sexton Award and a $1,000 prize for an exceptional performance during the final round.
William A. Brewer III, Brewer Foundation chairman and IPPF founder, said that "[Carroll] demonstrated a command of the topic and persuasive force that defines the art of advocacy. They earned their victory on a big stage, under the intense pressure of world-class intellectual competition."
He added, "The IPPF doesn't just build debaters -- it cultivates future leaders. At a time when civil discourse among those with opposing views seems nonexistent, this tournament annually engages students around the world in rigorous research, writing and oral advocacy on a topic of international importance."
Read more here.