The United States Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal by the National Football League (NFL), thereby permitting a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by coach Brian Flores to proceed in federal court.

美國最高法院拒絕受理國家美式足球聯盟（NFL）的上訴，因此允許由教練 Brian Flores 提起的種族歧視訴訟在聯邦法院繼續進行。

The litigation originated in February 2022, when Brian Flores, currently the defensive coordinator for the Minnesota Vikings, initiated a class-action suit against the NFL and several franchises, including the New York Giants, Denver Broncos, and Houston Texans. Flores, joined by co-plaintiffs Steve Wilks and Ray Horton, alleges systemic racial bias in the recruitment and retention of Black coaches and executives. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that certain interviews were conducted as superficial exercises to satisfy the Rooney Rule, a 2003 league policy designed to increase minority representation in leadership roles. Additional allegations include claims of professional sabotage and the imposition of 'bridge coach' roles to preclude genuine advancement.

此項訴訟始於 2022 年 2 月，當時現任明尼蘇達維京人隊防守協調員 Brian Flores 對 NFL 及數個球隊（包括紐約巨人、丹佛野馬及休士頓 Texans）提起集體訴訟。Flores 與共同原告 Steve Wilks 和 Ray Horton 指稱，在招募與留任黑人教練及高管方面存在系統性種族偏見。具體而言，原告主張某些面試僅為形式上的操演，以滿足 2003 年聯盟制定的「魯尼法則」（Rooney Rule），該政策旨在增加領導層中的少數族裔代表性。其他指控還包括專業上的蓄意破壞，以及被指派為「過渡教練」以阻礙真正的晉升。

A primary point of contention has been the venue of the proceedings. The NFL sought to compel arbitration, citing the NFL Constitution and employment contracts that grant Commissioner Roger Goodell the authority to resolve disputes. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that such an arrangement constituted 'arbitration in name only,' asserting that the lack of neutrality—given the Commissioner's dual role as chief executive and arbitrator—rendered the provision unenforceable under the Arbitration Act. While a federal judge previously ruled that claims specifically against the Miami Dolphins may remain in arbitration due to distinct contractual terms, the broader systemic claims are now directed toward the Southern District of New York.

爭論的核心在於訴訟的管轄地。NFL 引用 NFL 憲章及僱傭合約，主張委員會總裁 Roger Goodell 擁有解決爭議的權限，因此要求強制仲裁。然而，美國第二巡迴上訴法院判定，此類安排僅為「名義上的仲裁」，並指出由於總裁同時兼任首席執行官與仲裁員，缺乏中立性，導致該條款在《仲裁法》下無法執行。雖然一名聯邦法官先前裁定，針對邁阿密海豚隊的具體指控因合約條款不同可維持仲裁，但更廣泛的系統性指控目前將交由紐約南區聯邦法院處理。

In response to the Supreme Court's refusal to intervene, the plaintiffs' legal counsel asserted that the league must acknowledge the impermissibility of the Commissioner serving as the sole arbiter for discrimination claims. Conversely, the NFL stated its intention to defend its practices regardless of the judicial forum. The scope of the litigation has expanded recently, with the plaintiffs issuing discovery requests and subpoenas to 25 NFL franchises to examine hiring protocols.

針對最高法院拒絕介入，原告律師主張，聯盟必須承認由總裁單獨擔任歧視指控仲裁員是不允許的。相反地，NFL 表示無論在何種司法論壇，都將捍衛其做法。訴訟範圍近期有所擴大，原告已向 25 支 NFL 球隊發出證據開示請求及傳票，以審查招聘流程。

The case will now move toward the discovery phase and potential trial in federal court, following a dissent by Justice Brett Kavanaugh regarding the Court's decision not to grant review.

在大法官 Brett Kavanaugh 對法院決定不予審理表示異議後，本案將進入證據開示階段，並可能在聯邦法院進行審理。