Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

White Farmers Win Temporary Injunction Halting Biden Loan Forgiveness Program That Favored Non-Whites

White Farmers Win Temporary Injunction Halting Biden Loan Forgiveness Program That Favored Non-Whites

Federal Judge: “Defendants lack a compelling interest for the racial classifications…. Defendants are enjoined from forgiving any loans pursuant to Section 1005 until the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.”

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.”

The next step will be preliminary and permanent injunction hearings.




Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


That these manifestly unconstitutional, racist and inequitable program restrictions are even being promulgated in the first place, as official policy, speaks to how utterly misguided, immoral and foolish the Dhimmi-crats have become, in thrall to their “social justice” orthodoxies and attendant racial fanaticism.

I don’t recognize my Country anymore

The lunatics have finally taken over the asylum

henrybowman | June 12, 2021 at 6:16 pm

“7. Defendants’ use of race discrimination as a tool to end “systemic racism,” is therefore unconstitutional and should be enjoined by this Court.”

Where are the conservative wordsmiths? “…baseless assertions of ‘systemic racism,'” if you please!

JusticeDelivered | June 12, 2021 at 6:45 pm

“Present discrimination to remedy past discrimination”

That has been the case for everything affirmative.

Passing over those with the most merit for college admission and for jobs over race is racism. Allowing incompetents to stay in a job because of race is racism.

Make no mistake about my position, I am for the best man or woman, for the most qualified, regardless of race, to prosper.

Still, those who are not competent should be kicked to the curb, regardless of race.

    If that happened that would be justice delivered. At one we could hope for and often expect it to be delivered. But now all we have left is your name, JusticeDelivered.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to UserP. | June 12, 2021 at 9:24 pm

      I picked that handle early in the Thugvon Martin case, the nature of the high profile PR campaignmade me pretty sure that Zimmerman had dispensed lawful justice. It took a year to be sure. If only we had collectively kicked ass then,

    henrybowman in reply to JusticeDelivered. | June 13, 2021 at 2:52 pm

    “Make no mistake about my position, I am for the best man or woman, for the most qualified, regardless of race, to prosper.”

    See, that’s a core belief of whiteness, which is precisely what is under attack.
    The competing position is that everybody should get their bills paid, whether they work or not. Plus the mindset that anything can work if you have enough people to make the government pass a law mandating it.
    And this isn’t at all a nonwhite thing — look at Prohibition, and the War on Drugs.

Albigensian | June 12, 2021 at 7:00 pm

You’d think they’d be bright enough to use a proxy to achieve the same discriminatory results. I’m sure there are many receiving a university paycheck who could show them just how it’s done. A, umm, Harvard-approved personality evaluation? Or just some vague “holistic” criteria the government bureaucracy can be bullied into using?

The Friendly Grizzly | June 12, 2021 at 7:07 pm

Why are there any farm subsidies in the first place?


    The feds have a number of programs that seek to maintain some degree of wildlife habitat in farmland.

    A gentleman near me receives tax money to not plant part of his land so that ducks/geese land where they have for years. My neighbor received federal money to plant a riparian zone along a large creek.

    Not saying that stuff is wise or right, but that is my experience with it. We aren’t corn country down here.

    Holdover from the great depression. Once a federal assistance program is created for any ‘temporary’ condition it gains a constituency.

    That constituency of recipients is far more energetic in pushing to maintain the handout than it’s opponents. They make campaign contributions, hire lobbyists, fund boondoggle events. While using a portion of the tax dollars they receive to fund those efforts.

    They craft a narrative of ‘poor little old us’ that the media willingly perpetuate. Every opponent is cast as a mean spirited, miserly villain.

    In the case of farm subsidies ….well they aren’t farm subsidies. Most farmers, at least what we would describe as a Norman Rockwell mixed small farm don’t receive much if any benefit.

    What they really are is crop subsidies for specific crops. Corn, wheat and soybeans receive well over 2/3 of the money. The recipients, mostly very large producers, used their political clout to ensure the continuation by linking ‘welfare’ food assistance under the USDA budget.

    That linkage forged a coalition of rural and urban legislative members to continue scratching each others back.

    That’s a simplified version but I think pretty accurate.

    To smooth out the crash-boom-crash cycle of modern agriculture in a capitalist society. The dust bowl years were an incentive, because high prices of certain ag commodities caused US farmers to ‘sodbust’ tens of thousands of acres of ground that really had no business being planted to wheat or corn. From there, we got the Conservation Reserve Program to encourage farmers to plant marginal land back to grass, and various watershed programs to encourage small dams to prevent flooding, and of course farm subsidies to try to keep wild swings out of the market so small farmers don’t go bankrupt. (because big farmers can ride out the waves and buy up the bankrupt little farmers each cycle)

    henrybowman in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | June 13, 2021 at 3:06 pm

    Plus, they give the fedguv enormous control over the farming industry.

    Many of us recognize the case of Wickard v Filburn — the one that established that not engaging in interstate commerce is the same as engaging in interstate commerce. Specifically, the court ruled unanimously that a farmer raising extra (above his assigned quota) produce on his own farm to feed only his own animals was “engaging in interstate commerce” because he wasn’t purchasing that fodder on the open market.

    What many people don’t know about the case was that Filburn walked into this noose by accepting federal money to “agree to the rules,” which he then broke. “The farmer who planted within his allotment was in effect guaranteed a minimum return much above what his wheat would have brought if sold on a world market basis.” Filburn could have declined the subsidy, then he would have been free to produce wheat however he wished.

    And now you know the rest of the story.

    Antifundamentalist in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | June 14, 2021 at 3:01 pm

    Once upon a time, a few decades back now, there was a dinner table discussion at a military ball in which someone was outraged upon discovering that a certain political well-known political family was receiving farm subsidies to not raise pigs. They had been not raising pigs for 40 years and had, in fact, never raised pigs on that particular bit of farm land. You have to follow the money to know what’s going on.

Subotai Bahadur | June 12, 2021 at 7:31 pm

1) Keep in mind that this is a TEMPORARY restraining order. It can be overturned by any Leftist Judge higher up the food chain.
2) There are a lot of Leftist Judges higher up the food chain, or Judges who are terrified of vengeance by the Left if they are not Leftist and rule against them.
3) The Supreme Court, when it acceded to the election theft showed that they cannot be depended upon to defend country and Constitution.
4) And even if the courts ultimately say no, what is there that would stop the regime from doing it anyway?

Subotai Bahadur

    Milhouse in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | June 12, 2021 at 11:08 pm

    Of course it’s temporary; its only purpose is to allow the plaintiffs’ case to be heard, without their finding out that by the time they win all the money is gone, and all they get is an apology.

The left is racist to it’s core. Always has been, always will be.

One party has demonstrated systemic racism for over 150 years. Can anyone guess which party that is? Hint they were really mad when the GOP freed their slaves.

IMO, the Biden Admin is making a serious error in continuing to advance this policy. It would be far wiser to take the L and blame the Judiciary for halting the scheme.

By continuing the public awareness of the decision to use a strictly race based qualification as the criteria for aid under this program will grow even more widespread.

Additionally the Admin will ultimately lose this case, they have to. Otherwise any political entity could create their own programs exclusive to another ‘race’ or other immutable characteristic.

Now do the Oregon Cares Fund

“A $62 million targeted investment in the Black community from the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Based on state poverty data illustrating the lack of resources in the Black community, a $62 million targeted investment would provide some necessary relief to Black people, families, and businesses.This fund would be administered by The Contingent, an organization with pre-existing state contract relationships, in partnership with The Black United Fund. These two lead organizations have established community relationships and have existing grantor relationships with several community based organizations. These CBOs are already positioned to allocate funds to community members in a targeted yet expedient manner. The state should direct CRF resources not just geographically but in targeted strategies that are created by and for the Black community as evidenced by successes and precedents like the Black Student Success Plan (HB 2016) that has created culturally-specific pathways for Black students to succeed. ”

The application requires that your photograph be attached.

Now do Merrill Lynch: If you are white or Asian do not bother applying.

Michael Burry, author of “The Big Short”

Merrill Lynch job announcement:

“The amazing 1969 prophecy that racial preferences would cause the exact grievances of protesters today”

“No one can be expected to accept an inferior status willingly. The black students, unable to compete on even terms in the study of law, inevitably will seek other means to achieve recognition and self-expression. This is likely to take two forms. First, agitation to change the environment from one in which they are unable to compete to one in which they can. Demands will be made for elimination of competition, reduction in standards of performance, adoption of courses of study which do not require intensive legal analysis, and recognition for academic credit of sociological activities which have only an indirect relationship to legal training. Second, it seems probable that this group will seek personal satisfaction and public recognition by aggressive conduct, which, although ostensibly directed at external injustices and problems, will in fact be primarily motivated by the psychological needs of the members of the group to overcome feelings of inferiority caused by lack of success in their studies. Since the common denominator of the group of students with lower qualifications is one of race this aggressive expression will undoubtedly take the form of racial demands–the employment of faculty on the basis of race, a marking system based on race, the establishment of a black curriculum and a black law journal, an increase in black financial aid, and a rule against expulsion of black students who fail to satisfy minimum academic standards.”