By David Reaboi
Legal accusations, especially those involving claims of racism, carry significant weight. When wielded responsibly, they can potentially bring attention to individual acts of wrongdoing. When misused, however, these accusations risk inflaming divisions, discrediting legitimate grievances, and perpetuating distrust. Cynical trial lawyers–eager to inflate their reputations or bank accounts–often take advantage of emotionally-charged issues like racism; they weaponize claims of discrimination, not out of genuine concern for their clients, but to sensationalize cases and extract financial settlements or media attention.
This exploitation distorts the purpose of the legal system, turning it into a stage for self-promotion. Such lawyers prey on vulnerable clients, stoking outrage and manufacturing narratives that often lack evidence. Their actions not only harm the accused but also undermine public confidence in the legal process, casting doubt on the legitimacy of all claims of injustice.
Nowhere is this pattern more evident than in cases handled by attorneys like Marcus Sweetser, whose tactics highlight the dangers of prioritizing personal gain over ethical advocacy. Sweetster is a young trial lawyer based in Spokane, Washington. Since he began his legal career in 2017, he has specialized in racialized lawsuits against school districts, often winning his clients big payouts.
School districts in particular (especially those in the Pacific Northwest) are soft targets for these kinds of accusations of bigotry, real or imagined. Staffed and represented by progressives who already buy into the ideological construct of structural racism–where racism is assumed to be ever-present, even absent an incident–these institutions are sitting ducks for cynical lawyers.
Sweetster now represents students in their lawsuit against the Mead School District. Not far from the Idaho border, Mead is a small, predominantly white suburb of Spokane. In a 2023 hazing ritual, younger football players were coerced into acts of humiliation and physical violence by older teammates, prompting justified outrage from parents and community members alike.
A victim’s family retained Sweetser as their legal counsel; the attorney quickly framed the incident as not just a failure of oversight, but as an example of systemic racial bias embedded within the district’s culture. Sweetser alleged that the district’s response was racially motivated, a claim that has since polarized the community and drawn intense media scrutiny. But is it true?
The racializing of the Mead School District case is not an isolated incident in Sweetser’s brief career; in fact, it seems to be his specialty. In previous legal battles, the attorney has employed similar strategies, using racially charged narratives to elevate his cases. For instance, in a wrongful termination lawsuit against Spokane’s Reliable Manufacturing, Sweetser alleged systemic racial bias as a central issue despite a lack of concrete evidence. While his client’s grievances may have been valid, the attempt to frame the case as emblematic of broader societal racism drew criticism from legal observers for its speculative nature.
Similarly, Sweetser’s involvement in the case against the Spokane Housing Authority revolved around claims of racially motivated evictions. Though the court ultimately dismissed the racial discrimination claims, the publicity surrounding these accusations caused the housing authority reputational harm that lingered even after the legal process concluded.
In another case, Sweetser represented a plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit against the Spokane Police Department, alleging racially motivated targeting during a traffic stop. The case was dismissed when evidence failed to substantiate the claims. Despite the dismissal, Sweetser’s public statements garnered significant media attention, perpetuating a perception of systemic bias within the department.
These examples reflect a concerning trend of leveraging accusations of racism as a tactical advantage, irrespective of their evidentiary basis. While such tactics may generate publicity and pressure opposing parties, they risk trivializing the serious issue of racism by using it as a rhetorical device rather than a substantiated claim. By upholding rigorous standards of evidence and accountability, society can differentiate between legitimate claims and opportunistic tactics.
Accusations of racism should only be introduced into the discourse when supported by compelling evidence, not as a tool for amplifying grievances or advancing personal agendas. In the Mead School District case, the focus should remain on ensuring justice for the victim and implementing measures to enhance safety and accountability.
Ultimately, justice demands both courage and integrity, resisting the temptation to exploit sensitive issues for personal gain. At the same time, it requires holding lawyers like Sweetser accountable for their conduct, ensuring that their actions align with the pursuit of justice rather than self-interest.
David Reaboi is the president of Strategic Improvisation, a communications company focused on clients in the national security world. He also is a Claremont Institute Lincoln Fellow and a former Vice President for Strategic Communications for the Center for Security Policy.
