On Thursday, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted class certification and a preliminary injunction against the United States Department of Agriculture "from providing loan forgiveness to farmers and ranchers on the basis of race or ethnicity," per an order from Judge Reed O'Connor.
"The Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Government’s use of race-and ethnicity-based preferences in the administration of the loan-forgiveness program violates equal protection under the Constitution," his order noted. "In sum, the Government’s evidence falls short of demonstrating a compelling interest, as any past discrimination is too attenuated from any present-day lingering effects to justify race-based remedial action by Congress," Judge O'Connor also wrote.
As his order notes:
The Government’s claim that new race-based discrimination is needed to remedy past race-based discrimination is unavailing. Namely, it is founded on a faulty premise equating equal protection with equal results.
The Court is skeptical of racial “parity” arguments, as they tend to sound a lot like racial balancing, something abhorrent to the concept of equal protection. In any event, the Government’s evidence does not support the conclusion that these disparities are the result of systemic discrimination justifying the use of race classifications here.
A Thursday press release from America First Legal, which challenged the loan forgiveness program for farmers and ranchers of section 1005 from the American Rescue Plan Act read in part:
AFL, on behalf of farmers and ranchers across the United States, including Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, challenged the federal government’s racially discriminatory and unconstitutional loan-forgiveness program, which provides loan forgiveness up to 120% for farmers and ranchers based solely on the color of their skin. The Court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction against this racially discriminatory program is a major win for every American citizen.
To be eligible under this program, one must be a "socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher," part of a "socially disadvantaged group," defined as a "group whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities."
Betsy McCaughey, in a May 26 column for Townhall, highlighted how the program discriminates against white farmers, including Midwestern farmer Adam Faust who was born with spina bifida, has two prosthetic legs, and is in debt. He didn't qualify though because he is white.
The Government even acknowledged the racially discriminatory component involved, as referenced in the court order:
The Government concedes its prioritization scheme is race-based but maintains that it is allowed to use racial classification to remedy the lingering effects of past racial discrimination against minority groups—a 'well-established' compelling government interest. The Government also submits that Congress narrowly tailored the law to achieve that compelling interest, considering the history of discrimination against minority farmers and specific gaps in pandemic-related funding for those racial groups. The Court disagrees.
The Government still couldn't get it right, though. According to Judge O'Connor, "the loan-forgiveness program is simultaneously overinclusive and underinclusive: overinclusive in that the program provides debt relief to individuals who may never have experienced discrimination or pandemic-related hardship, and underinclusive in that it fails to provide any relief to those who have suffered such discrimination but do not hold a qualifying FSA loan."
Stephen Miller, the president of AFL, spoke to Townhall about the victory, which he shared is "a really humiliating defeat for the [Biden] administration in court because of the breadth, the substance, and the force of argument in the order." Miller affirmed the order provided "moral and legal clarity" which "can only be described as a huge setback for the Biden administration."
Specifically, this win is a "very detailed, powerful repudiation of Biden's equity agenda." Miller went on to note "it's really important that we decode the word 'equity,' so that people understand what it means."
"Let's be clear," Miller said, "this is not a side project for the new administration, this is the central project of the new administration."
Equity, Miller would explain, "is purposefully meant to be not complementary, but a competing concept to equality."
While equity is involved in the USDA case, it's also become part of the Left's "new lexicon" in an attempt to "disguise very old concepts under the false banner of progress." This includes "discrimination," described by Miller as "one of the worst features of humanity," which has been replaced with equity.
The Biden administration has wasted no time in its equity agenda. As President Joe Biden himself last week made reference to, he has ordered all of his cabinet nominees and agencies to make "equity" a priority. On his first day in office, Biden signed numerous executive orders, many having to do with his transgender rights agenda.
Miller explained that the loan-forgiveness program was among "the first to signal attempts during the so-called honeymoon period of the Biden administration to implement this equity agenda and to structuralize this agenda into the business of government."
AFL is just as quick, though. Miller laid out that they have to be, considering "things can get embedded and things can get normalized very easily and very quickly."
Miller warned of scenarios in which "this kind of government explicit discrimination will be commonplace and you'll wonder how it happened," which is the motivation for acting so quickly, especially as the government will be adding similar programs. "Our job is to meet it every time," Miller said, "because otherwise, it does become 'normal,'" or rather is "regarded as such."
As time goes on, something which initially seemed unlikely to ever come to be, like a biological man competing in women's sports, becomes more pervasive. People may disagree, but many are afraid to speak out.
"The left is very good at creating this enforcement regime," Miller explained, "once they reach a critical mass at implementing something," which "allows them to protect policies that the vast majority of people don't think are sane."
Miller is adamant about avoiding scenarios like DACA for instance, where a unilateral policy had been in place for years before the Supreme Court weighed in, and ultimately left it in place. He suggested that the outcome would have been different had it been brought earlier, as it would have been "appeared correctly."
It is speed as well as breadth of focus, which is why it was such a crucial victory for Judge O'Connor to grant class certification with their plaintiffs so that "a broad preliminary injunction remains in place" and sets them up well, should this case reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
While the government is sure to appeal, Miller shared they feel "confident" about the case." He says he intends for their win to be "decisively and on the merits" and that "the policy will be permanently enjoined and stricken down."
When it comes to other discriminatory government practices, Miller reassured that "wherever there is a willing plaintiff, we'll be ready, willing, eager to take up that fight."
The premise here is simple. Americans cannot be discriminated against based on the color of their skin, not even when it's done under the guise of "equity."