“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
An airline passenger, who is a US citizen of Chinese descent, filed a lawsuit against an airline for kicking him off a plane because of his race.
What happened in this case?
After boarding a United Airlines plane, Yubao Miao contends that a flight attendant singled him out for harsh treatment and ultimately was removed from the plane because he was Chinese. Specifically, he claimed that the flight attendant had stared at him when he boarded, and that before takeoff, she asked Miao to move a lunch bag from an overhead compartment to under his seat. He indicated that he would temporarily place it on a seat next to him and put it underneath when additional passengers arrived, but the attendant “yelled” at him and “threatened to tell the captain.” A white passenger with similarly sized bags luggage was not disturbed. Miao immediately moved the lunch bag as instructed. Nevertheless, a supervisor told Miao he had to leave the plane and he did.
Miao filed a lawsuit charging race discrimination in federal court. The district court ruled against him as a matter of law and he appealed to the Seventh Circuit. Trump judges Thomas Kirsch and David Scudder affirmed the decision against him, while Reagan Judge Kenneth Ripple dissented, in January 2026 in Yubo Miao v United Airlines.
How did Trump judges Kirsch and Scudder rule?
Judges Kirsch wrote an opinion, joined by Judge Scudder, that ruled against Miao’s discrimination claim and affirmed the decision below. They claimed that Miao had raised “no plausible allegation” of discrimination that “holds up” to “scrutiny” so the case should be dismissed’
What did Judge Ripple say in dissent?
Conservative Reagan Judge Ripple firmly dissented. Miao had a “right to develop” his theory of discrimination “beyond the complaint stage,” he explained. At this early stage of a case, he went on, a court should not conduct further “scrutiny” but should ask only whether the complaint “contains enough factual details” to “conclude that the story could have happened,” which was clearly the case here.
Why is the result harmful?
The decision by Trump judges Kirsch and Scudder clearly harms Yubo Miao’s efforts to get justice for the discriminatory conduct that he contends he suffered at the hands of United Airlines. It also sets a bad precedent for comparable cases at least in the Seventh Circuit, including Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. The decision also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.