Image 01 Image 03

Appeals Court Enjoins Biden’s Coronvirus Relief Favoring Non-Whites and Women

Appeals Court Enjoins Biden’s Coronvirus Relief Favoring Non-Whites and Women

“This case is about whether the government can allocate limited coronavirus relief funds based on the race and sex of the applicants. We hold that it cannot.”

The Biden administration, at several levels, has implemented racial preferences that have led to litigation involving farmers and others excluded because their skin does not have enough color in it.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals just issued and injunction halting racial and gender discrimination in the Coronavirus Relief package that recently passed Congress. The issue was not the relief package itself, but racial and gender preferences used by the Small Business Administration to favor non-whites and women.

Here are excerpts from the Opinion:

This case is about whether the government can allocate limited coronavirus relief funds based on the race and sex of the applicants. We hold that it cannot. Thus, we enjoin the government from using these unconstitutional criteria when processing Antonio Vitolo’s application.

The Opinion goes into the details of the law at issue:

As part of the most recent coronavirus relief bill (the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021), Congress allocated nearly $29 billion for grants to help restaurant owners meet payroll and other expenses. Pub. L. No. 117-2, § 5003(b)(2)(A), (c) (Restaurant Revitalization Fund). The fund was created to aid small privately owned restaurants, not large chains. Id. § 5003(a)(4)(C). The Small Business Administration, a federal agency, processes the applications and distributes the funds….

The key to getting a grant is to get in the queue before the money runs out. The Small Business Administration distributes money on a first come, first served basis. But there is a catch. During the first 21 days the agency gives grants to priority applicants only. Id. § 5003(c)(1). Priority applicants are restaurants that are at least 51% owned and controlled by women, veterans, or the “socially and economically disadvantaged.”….

Antonio Vitolo and his wife own a restaurant called Jake’s Bar and Grill. Vitolo is white and his wife is Hispanic, and they each own 50% of the restaurant. Like many restaurants, Jake’s Bar has struggled during the pandemic—it closed on weekdays and offered to-go orders on weekends. It lost workers and a considerable amount in sales. So on the first day that the Small Business Administration allowed applications, Vitolo submitted one. Since the restaurant is not 51% owned by a woman or veteran, Vitolo had to qualify as “socially and economically disadvantaged” to get priority status….

The Small Business Administration has injected explicit racial and ethnic preferences into the priority process. See 13 C.F.R. § 124.103. Under a regulation that predates the pandemic, the agency presumes certain applicants are socially disadvantaged based solely on their race or ethnicity. Groups that presumptively qualify as socially disadvantaged—and thus get to jump to the front of the line for priority consideration—include “Black Americans,” “Hispanic Americans,” “Asian Pacific Americans,” “Native Americans,” and “Subcontinent Asian Americans.”1 Id. § 124.103(b)(1). If you are in one of these groups, the Small Business Administration assumes you qualify as socially disadvantaged. Indeed, the only way not to qualify is if someone comes forward “with credible evidence to the contrary.” Id. § 124.103(b)(3).

Applicants who do not get the presumption must prove they have experienced racial or ethnic discrimination or cultural bias by a preponderance of the evidence. …

The added evidentiary burden faced by white men and other non-presumptively disadvantaged groups stands in marked contrast with lenient evidentiary standards set by the American Rescue Plan Act….

Vitolo sued to end the race and sex preferences in grant funding, claiming that they violated his constitutional rights. With the funds rapidly depleting, Vitolo asked for a temporary restraining order and ultimately a preliminary injunction that would prohibit the government from handing out grants based on the applicants’ race or sex. The district court declined to issue a restraining order and said that Vitolo was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

The Court rejected the administration’s claim that the discrimination was lawful:

Vitolo challenges the Small Business Administration’s use of race and sex preferences when distributing Restaurant Revitalization Funds. The government concedes that it uses race and sex to prioritize applications, but it contends that its policy is still constitutional. We disagree….

When the government promulgates race-based policies, it must operate with a scalpel. And its cuts must be informed by data that suggest intentional discrimination. The broad statistical disparities cited by the government are not nearly enough….

For these reasons, we conclude that the government lacks a compelling interest in awarding Restaurant Revitalization Funds based on the race of the applicants. And as a result, the policy’s use of race violates equal protection….

The government contends that women “struggled to receive pandemic relief from the Federal government” from prior aid programs. Gov’t Resp. 20 (citation omitted). But as we previously discussed, the government has a ready alternative: Give priority to restaurant owners who did not receive prior aid. There is no need to use sex as a proxy when the government seeks to remedy a problem that is purely economic….

Thus, the government has failed to provide an exceedingly persuasive justification that would allow the classification to stand….

It has been twenty-five years since the Supreme Court struck down the race-conscious policies in Adarand. And it has been nearly twenty years since the Supreme Court struck down the racial preferences in Gratz. As today’s case shows once again, the “way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 748 (plurality opinion).

The government shall fund the plaintiffs’ grant application, if approved, before all later-filed applications, without regard to processing time or the applicants’ race or sex. The government, however, may continue to give veteran-owned restaurants priority in accordance with the law. This preliminary injunction shall remain in place until this case is resolved on the merits and all appeals are exhausted.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This sounds very good. It’s wonderful also that a non class-action plaintiff was able to sue and get to this stage, where he should receive more financial and legal help if needed.

    lexman in reply to artichoke. | May 27, 2021 at 10:17 pm

    There should be some positive public acknowledgment of the law firm that capably handled this case, likely as a pro bono undertaking.

henrybowman | May 27, 2021 at 8:21 pm

Thanks for the top photo, so we have an idea of what today’s Democrat racists look like.

That the vile Xi-den Administration even attempts to promulgate manifestly unconstitutional legislation and spending allocations based upon race and gender is simply obnoxiously galling, indefensible and breathtakingly arrogant. And, that farm bill aid that is exclusively directed towards farmers “of color” is also being challenged, in court.

Think about what kind of utterly bankrupt political ideology one must follow, in order to propose race and gender-based financial aid programs. This is the inequitable idiocy that the vile Dhimmi-crats have wrought.

JusticeDelivered | May 27, 2021 at 9:49 pm

Well, there has been race based Affirmative BS since I was in 7th grade., busing when kids who did not want learn were dropped into class where children did want to learn. Just a few of those in a class harmed every other student. Then there were block busters, who started destruction of cities, and who effectively fleeced hard working families of a decade or two of equity.

Fast forward to what is happening today. It is not acceptable.

I like to see people succeed, regardless of race. I have no use for lazy, willfully ignorant, scheemers, again regardless of race.

There is a whole lot of ass kicking which is in order today.

Oregon Mike | May 27, 2021 at 10:42 pm

Well, DUH! You mean to tell us that it takes an appellate court to straighten this out? What is with these District Court judges, anyhow?

Can the court just enjoin the entire Biden administration? Please? Tongue in cheek, but only partially.

Here in LA County, Fake Doctor Ferrer cited her concern over vaccination rates in “people of color” neighborhoods being below that of whites as the likely reason she may not follow through on Governor Hair Gel’s June 15 date for lifting WuFlu restrictions.

There is no reason why anyone in CA cannot walk into a CVS and get vaccinated. It just so happens that minorities who distrust the vaccines is more pronounced than for whites apparently. I doubt this ruling is going to matter. None of this has been legal from the beginning. They are even rejecting the science now.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Pasadena Phil. | May 28, 2021 at 2:27 pm

    Vaccines were discovered by evil white people. So why would POC take the chance of being killed by the evil white man’s vaccine? There is a POC developed vaccine from China, but that is appropriated technology from evil white people and so maintains its evilness and should rightly be viewed with suspicion and fear. POC will not risk exposing themselves to evil white man technology, and will step forward when their is a POC developed means to prevent the virus. Until then, POC would greatly appreciate if the evil white people and purveyors of the systemically white racist country that is the USA, and their lackeys who have been coopted by the evil white man to perpetuate white supremacy, stop trying to make POC take this racist concoction so POC may live in peace, freedom, harmony with nature, and, above all, independent of white evilness in all its manefestations.

The basis for the complaint is simple: Only people who apply in the first open period are going to get the free money. Since certain people are restricted from applying in the first open period, they are going to get shafted solidly.

This is not even discrimination, it is outright exclusion.