Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): onto § 1981. I also agree that Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 94 S.Ct. 2474, 41 L.Ed.2d 290 (1974), does not save the Kamehameha policy. Mancan involved a federal employment preference for persons of tribal ancestry that the Court upheld against a Fifth Amendment challenge because tribes, which are federally-recognized, are a political, rather than a racial, classification. 417 U.S. at 553-55, 94 S.Ct. 2474. However, the Court has since declined to extend Mancan to an Hawaii statutory scheme that restricted voting for certain state officials to those of Native Hawaiian ancestry. Rice, 528 U.S. at 518-23, 120 S.Ct. 1044. As no other basis appears for affirming, I would reverse. 1 . See also Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 107 S.Ct. 2022, 95 L.Ed.2d 582 (1987) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Neither party discusses whether the right 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiff could not assert a  1981 claim based on gender discrimination (B) holding unequivocally that  1981 protects against racial discrimination in private employment (C) holding that title vii precludes a claim under section 1981 for racial discrimination against a federal employee (D) holding that  1981 protects against discrimination based on ancestry (E) holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination
Output (English): holding unequivocally that  1981 protects against racial discrimination in private employment