Judicial but-for causation of contractual injury

AND · 42usc1981:but-for-causation

This judicial requirement is not verbatim statutory language. Comcast rejected a motivating-factor pleading rule and importing Title VII’s mixed-motive standard. But-for does not mean race must be the sole cause. The official opinion is an external annotation, not a fabricated local IR rule quote.

Exact element source

shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts
Source: docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1981; Unicode character offsets [121:205] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5e5aa212ab2f30dd84c80b0b228057e2c583768ee608c391e0ac73d92e609577.

All variants

Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants
VariantDescriptionMerits instance blocksDistinct casesExample cases (up to 3 per group)
Unspecified variantNo variant assigned in the database.0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 2
0No counted merits examples

Excluded context examples: /f3d/922/0219-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — applied/merits; /f3d/927/0081-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — applied/merits

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
CaseElementHolding and scopeVariantExact source quotations
/f3d/922/0219-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019Judicial but-for causation of contractual injurynot_reached
Excluded from merits counts
applied / merits

No current Comcast but-for ruling is inferred. The 2019 opinion’s final mixed-motive discussion concerns Title VII’s motivating-factor route and cannot supply the modern §1981 standard.
Unspecified variantNo source quotation recorded for this block.
/f3d/927/0081-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019Judicial but-for causation of contractual injurynot_reached
Excluded from merits counts
applied / merits

This 2019 pleading decision predates Comcast; it is not an ultimate but-for holding.
Unspecified variantNo source quotation recorded for this block.

Court interpretations