The Supreme Court has decided not to revive the stalled lawsuit of a former middle school student who alleged he was bullied for being white and backing President Donald Trump.

The student, Brooks Warden, also identified in court papers as B.W., sued the Austin, Texas, Independent School District in 2020, alleging that in the 8th, 9th, and 10th grades he was “ostracized” and experienced physical and verbal abuse because he was white, Christian, and a Trump supporter.

Warden said he occasionally wore a pro-Trump “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) hat and that he experienced harassment because he was falsely accused of being anti-gay, anti-feminist, and racist.

He said a teacher addressed him as “Whitey” and that a fellow student authored a meme depicting him as a hood-wearing Ku Klux Klansman.

Warden sued, alleging the school district was deliberately indifferent to the bullying, which he said violated Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, a law that forbids racial discrimination in endeavors such as education that benefit from funding from the federal government.

The Supreme Court’s new decision took the form of an unsigned order in B.W. v. Austin Independent School District that was issued on June 30.

No justices dissented. The court did not explain its ruling.

Warden, who describes himself as a “white, Christian male,” filed a petition with the Supreme Court, saying he once donned a MAGA hat during a school field trip.

“This innocent act triggered a years-long campaign of bullying and harassment against him based on his race and political views by both his classmates and teachers.”

Warden filed suit under Title VI, alleging racial harassment.

A federal district court dismissed his legal complaint after accepting a recommendation from a federal magistrate judge.

The recommendation said Warden was subjected to a “handful of vaguely race-related comments” that did “not amount to the ‘severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive’ requirement for a race-based harassment claim under Title VI,” according to the petition.

Magistrate judges are appointed to assist federal district judges.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in January 2023, determining that the bulk of the incidents to which Warden referred related to his ideological beliefs, which cannot be used to support a claim of Title VI racial discrimination.

Warden appealed, and the full Fifth Circuit heard the case, deadlocking in November 2024 in a 9–9 vote, which meant the previous ruling remained intact.

Circuit Judge Priscilla Richman concurred, saying the “primary impetus” for most of the incidents was Warden’s views on politics, as opposed to his race.

Circuit Judge James Ho dissented, saying the lawsuit should move forward because evidence pointed to race as a motive for the harassment, as well as political views.

Warden was “harassed on multiple occasions for multiple reasons,” and the fact that he is “white was absolutely one of them,” the judge said.

Ho said it was “not surprising that more institutions increasingly believe that they have cultural permission to tolerate (if not encourage) racism against whites, under the guise of promoting diversity.”

“It may be politically correct in certain circles to discriminate against whites. But politically correct does not mean legally correct,” Ho said.

In the petition, Warden said the Supreme Court has never decided whether Title VI creates a cause of action that students may rely on when they experience a hostile environment at school.

A cause of action is a set of facts that provides a legal basis for suing someone.

However, the petition said the high court does recognize such claims when brought under Title IX, a separate federal civil rights law that applies in the field of education.

The federal appeals courts “that have considered the question have been unanimous in extending those holdings to Title VI.”

The ruling of the Fifth Circuit reflects “obvious confusion” over the legal standard that should be applied in a discrimination lawsuit and “such confusion demands clarity from the Court,” the petition said.

The Austin Independent School District filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to reject the appeal.

The brief said the case has become “a publicity stunt fueled by partisan rhetoric and political opportunism.”

Warden, who often complained he was harassed because of his conservative political beliefs, at first claimed in his lawsuit that the harassment stemmed from his political views alone, but a year into the case, he began saying the harassment was also based on his race.

The school district “does not condone harassment or bullying of any kind, and it regrets that [Warden] had negative experiences with its students and staff members, but this is not a Title VI case,” the brief said.

Warden had been represented by attorney Harmeet Dhillon, who is listed in the petition as his counsel of record.

Dhillon was sworn in on April 7 as head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s civil rights division after being nominated by Trump.

Reuters contributed to this report.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared July 4, 2025, in The Epoch Times.