0
0
Discussion on Discriminatory Practices in Federal Loan Forgiveness Programs
A recent legal petition presented to the U.S. Supreme Court raises a thought-provoking question regarding the constitutionality of a discriminatory federal program and the subsequent termination of said program to avoid legal repercussions. The controversy stems from the implementation of the American Rescue Plan Act by President Joe Biden, which allocated $4 billion for loan forgiveness to farmers, excluding white farmers from eligibility. This racially biased scheme aimed to provide loan relief and a 20% cash-back bonus exclusively to non-white farmers, resulting in financial exclusion for Caucasian farmers.
Background and Legal Challenge
One such impacted farmer, Leisl Carpenter from Wyoming’s Big Laramie Valley, confronted the discriminatory program in court, arguing that she was unfairly denied assistance solely based on her race. The fundamental allegation in the case is that Carpenter, being Caucasian, was deemed ineligible for debt relief under Section 1005 of the program, directly contravening the constitutional right to equal protection under the 5th Amendment. The discriminatory nature of the program was explicitly acknowledged in the USDA’s Notice of Funds Availability, validating Carpenter’s legal challenge.
The legal battle initiated by Carpenter, with the representation of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, emphasized the program’s preferential treatment of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, which resulted in the exclusion of certain individuals based on race. However, before the court could issue an injunction against the program, Congress repealed it following a resolution in a separate case from Tennessee, rendering the original program defunct.
Looming Legal Questions
The subsequent decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissing Carpenter’s case on grounds of mootness due to the program’s discontinuation and geographical considerations, has raised complex legal questions. The central issue pertains to whether a lawsuit challenging government actions that violate constitutional protections can be nullified if the offending program is terminated. This precedent potentially enables the federal government to evade accountability for discriminatory practices by simply dismantling contentious programs after legal challenges are initiated.
William Trachman of the Mountain States Legal Foundation aptly pointed out the dangerous precedent set by the 10th Circuit’s ruling, which essentially provides a roadmap for unchecked discriminatory actions by the government. The concern about arbitrary administrative decisions leading to unchecked discriminatory practices under the guise of social justice or reparations highlights the need for vigilant oversight and adherence to constitutional principles.
Image/Photo credit: source url
