White Farmers Win Temporary Injunction Halting Biden Loan Forgiveness Program That Favored Non-Whites
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Biden administration has suffered another setback to its agenda of advancing racially disciminatory policies meant to favor non-whites.
In a recent case, an Appeals Court Enjoins Biden's Coronvirus Relief Favoring Non-Whites and Women. Now another discriminatory policy has been halted.
We previously covered a lawsuit by white farmers, White Farmers Excluded From Biden Loan Forgiveness Program Sue To Stop "use of race discrimination as a tool to end 'systemic racism'":
This lawsuit, and others sure to follow, could have huge implications for education as well. Present discrimination to remedy past discrimination is a foundational principle of Ibram X. Kendi's "antiracism" philosophy that is a driving force from higher ed to K-12 activism. Court recognition that the Kendian "antiracism" approach when applied to farmers constitutes illegal racial discrimination could easily be applied to the race shaming and belittling of people based on race that has permeated so many educational institutions.
The Complaint asserted:
3. Plaintiffs are farmers from Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Ohio who have direct loans with the Farm Service Agency (FSA) or loans backed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). They are otherwise eligible for the loan-forgiveness program in ARPA, except for the color of their skin. As white farmers, Plaintiffs are ineligible for this government benefit….
7. Defendants' use of race discrimination as a tool to end "systemic racism," is therefore unconstitutional and should be enjoined by this Court.
On June 10, a federal court judge in Wisconsin granted a Temporary Restraining Order (pdf.) halting the discrimination:
Twelve plaintiffs, who reside in nine different states, including Wisconsin, brought this action against the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), seeking to enjoin officials of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) from implementing a loan-forgiveness program for farmers and ranchers under Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). Plaintiffs assert that Section 1005 denies them equal protection of the law because eligibility to participate in the program is based solely on racial classifications….
Plaintiffs are twelve white farmers and ranchers from nine different states. Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin the purportedly unconstitutional race based program before all of the money is distributed….
Because the program grants privileges to individuals based solely on their race, strict scrutiny applies….
Here, Defendants lack a compelling interest for the racial classifications. Defendants assert that "Congress targeted the debt payments in Section 1005 to the minority groups that it determined had suffered discrimination in the USDA programs and that had been largely left out of recent agricultural funding and pandemic relief." Dkt. No. 17 at 17. But Defendants have not established that the loan-forgiveness program targets a specific episode of past or present discrimination….
Aside from a summary of statistical disparities, Defendants have no evidence of intentional discrimination by the USDA in the implementation of the recent agriculture subsidies and pandemic relief efforts.
The Court rejected issuing only a narrow injunction, and issued instead a 'universal' injunction and halted the loan forgiveness program:
Plaintiffs have satisfied the elements necessary to obtain a temporary restraining order. Defendants argue that any temporary restraining order should be limited to Plaintiffs and not the thousands of other farmers across the country. They suggest that the Court issue a limited injunction requiring that the government set aside funds to pay off Plaintiffs' qualified loans pending the outcome of the litigation. While universal injunctions are rare, they "can be necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs, to protect similarly-situated nonparties, and to avoid the chaos and confusion that comes from a patchwork of injunctions." City of Chicago v. Barr, 961 F.3d 882, 916-17 (7th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A nation-wide injunction is appropriate in this case. Defendants' proposal to set aside funds to pay off any of Plaintiffs' qualified loans is unworkable. If the USDA forgave Plaintiffs' loans, it would be required to forgive every farmer's loan, since the only criteria for loan forgiveness is the applicant's race. Plaintiffs estimate that this would increase the cost of the program to $400 billion. Dkt. No. 19 at 3. In addition, nothing would prevent Plaintiffs from amending the complaint to add other farmers and ranchers as plaintiffs to this action. To ensure that Plaintiffs receive complete relief and that similarly-situated nonparties are protected, a universal temporary restraining order in this case is proper….
Defendants are enjoined from forgiving any loans pursuant to Section 1005 until the Court rules on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
NBC News quotes the adminitration's reaction:
A department spokesman, Matt Herrick, told NBC News, "We respectfully disagree with this temporary order and USDA will continue to forcefully defend our ability to carry out this act of Congress and deliver debt relief to socially disadvantaged borrowers. When the temporary order is lifted, USDA will be prepared to provide the debt relief authorized by Congress."
Tags
Who is online
70 visitors
A temporary injunction involving discrimination against whites!
Next they'll be denying white people mortgages based on their zip code. Oh my.
This was part of a settlement to black farmers who were systematically discriminated against government farm programs going back generations. The plaintiffs suffered damages and are entitled to relief.
Even if that were true, the Constitution forbids special treatment/discrimination based on race.
The US District Court District of Columbia agrees with the constitution and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Black and Native American farmers in Pigford vs Glickman and Keepseagle vs Vilsick.
They didn't rule on anything. All the Courts did was ratify agreements to settle lawsuits in one of the biggest political grifts and frauds in American history where a Democratic DOJ worked against taxpayers to give money to Democratic special interest groups . Even the New York Times couldn't turn a blind eye to massive fraud.
This is what corruption looks like:
Political appointees in the Obama Administration overruled career lawyers and agency officials at the Justice and Agriculture Departments, committing $1.33 billion to compensate "thousands of Hispanic and female farmers who had never claimed bias in court," even though the civil servants argued that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination...
a 2010 settlement with Native Americans, Justice Department lawyers "argued that the $760 million agreement far outstripped the potential cost of a defeat in court. Agriculture officials said not that many farmers would file claims. That prediction proved prophetic. Only $300 million in claims were filed, leaving nearly $400 million in the control of plaintiffs' lawyers to be distributed among a handful of nonprofit organizations serving Native American farmers. Two and a half years later, the groups have yet to be chosen. It is unclear how many even exist."
Thank you Sean, the court ratified the settlements in both cases. That would indicate that the plaintiffs did indeed prevail in their cases.
So the Keepeagle settlement was agreed to because the USDA felt that a defeat in court would be much most costly. Not very secure in their belief that they were correct were they.
BTW, this is what the presiding judge had to say about the settlement.
What court made that ruling?
This was part of a settlement to black farmers who were systematically discriminated against government farm programs going back generations. The plaintiffs suffered damages and are entitled to relief.
The truth of that opinion has not been established. But the remedy is race based and unconstitutional..
Actually, there were two separate cases, the first being Pigford vs Glickman, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Paul Friedman. Settled in favor of the plaintiffs (Black Farmers)
The second case was Keepseagle vs Vilsick, settled in favor of the plaintiffs (Native American Farmers)
Thanks for sharing facts even if they were ignored.
It's a temporary injunction. We'll see what happens.
I don't see anywhere where these cases are associated with Biden's program.
White Farmers Win Temporary Injunction Halting Biden Loan Forgiveness Program That Favored Non-Whites (legalinsurrection.com)
H.R.1319 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
This was the original question.
This was your question.
My response and link were in answer to your question. Those are two court cases and settlements that address the question of discrimination towards Black and NA farmers.
The current ruling is a TRO that will be challenged, we'll see how it turns out somewhere down the line.
That isn't a question, it is a statement stating that the loan forgiveness program, as stated in the article, is part of settlement for past discrimination.
Yes, pertaining to comment #2 which is addressing the seeded article which is about Biden's loan forgiveness program. How do the two cases you cited directly relate to the loan forgiveness program provided by the American Rescue Plan Act? There is no mention of the past two cases you cited in the 2021 act. The 2021 act is for COVID relief and states nothing about claims of discrimination from past cases and payment for past case rulings. It only states loan forgiveness for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. I do not see any requirements in Biden's program for past discrimination to receive funds provided by the American Rescue Plan Act.
Can you state where the two cases you cited are directly related to Biden's COVID relief program as stated by JBB in comment #2?
In the current case, the crux of the matter is that it is discriminatory to have relief based on race, the two cases that I cited did exactly that as the plaintiffs in both cases were a racial minority and they received court-approved settlements based on discriminated practices directed at them.
As I stated earlier it's a TRO and will be challenged so we probably won't know anything for some time as to which way the court will see it. It will be interesting to follow.
True, but I said as related to comment #2 stating that Biden's COVID relief program is part of a settlement relating to past cases.
Which is the comment I directed my question to.
We can agree that comment #2 is false.
There is nothing in the bill which states that regardless of Mr. Clayton's opinion or anyone else. If this is true, then it would have been written into the bill.
Section #1005 of the relief package does not refer to or require any settlement of past court cases. Comment #2 is false.