Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Yet Another Biden Program Favoring Non-Whites Halted By Federal Judge

Yet Another Biden Program Favoring Non-Whites Halted By Federal Judge

“Plaintiff is a White farmer in Jennings, Florida who has qualifying farm loans but is ineligible for debt relief under Section 1005 solely because of his race.” Judge agrees: “Race or ethnicity is the sole, inflexible factor that determines the availability of relief provided by the Government….”

One of the policy priorities of the Biden administration has been to institute policies and practices that favor non-whites over whites in the name of achieving racial equity. The problem with such racially discriminatory actions is that they are … wait for it … plainly illegal.

In multiple cases we have covered, federal judges have halted such federal racial discrimination:

There may be other such cases, we haven’t comprehensively cataloged them.

Now there is another. Reuters reports, U.S. judge blocks $4 billion debt relief program for minority farmers:

A U.S. federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked a part of the Biden administration’s federal stimulus relief package that forgave agricultural debts to farmers of color.

A white farmer named Scott Wynn of Jennings, Florida, in May had challenged U.S. President Joe Biden’s plans as he faced farm loans and financial hardship during the pandemic. He said the debt relief program discriminated against him by race.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard blocked the government’s $4 billion aid package to farmers of color on Wednesday, ruling that the plaintiff had established a “strong likelihood” of the policy violating his right to equal protection under the law.

Wynn, who is challenging Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act, which provides debt relief to “socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers,” is likely to succeed, Howard said in the ruling filed in the Middle District Court of Florida.

The Order (pdf.) provides, in part:

In this action, Plaintiff challenges Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), 2 which provides debt relief 3 to “socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers” (SDFRs). (Doc 1; Complaint). Specifically, Section 1005(a)(2) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to pay up to 120% of the indebtedness, as of January 1, 2021, of an SDFR’s direct Farm Service Agency (FSA) loans and any farm loan guaranteed by the Secretary (collectively, farm loans). Section 1005 incorporates 7 U.S.C. § 2279’s definition of an SDFR as “a farmer of rancher who is a member of a socially disadvantaged group.” 7 U.S.C. § 2279(a)(5). A “socially disadvantaged group” is 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.” 7 U.S.C. § 2279(a)(6). Racial or ethnic groups that categorically qualify as socially disadvantaged are “Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander.” Complaint at ¶ 3; see also U.S. Dep’t of Agric., American Rescue Plan Debt Payments, (last visited June 22, 2021). White or Caucasian farmers and ranchers do not.

Plaintiff is a White farmer in Jennings, Florida who has qualifying farm loans but is ineligible for debt relief under Section 1005 solely because of his race….

The Court found a likelihood of success on the merits:

On the record presented here, the Court expresses serious concerns over whether the Government will be able to establish a strong basis in evidence warranting the implementation of Section 1005’s race-based remedial action….

Nevertheless, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court need not determine whether the Government ultimately will be able to establish a compelling need for this broad, race-based remedial legislation.9 This is because, assuming the Government’s evidence establishes the existence of a compelling governmental interest warranting some form of race-based relief, for the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff has convincingly shown that the relief provided by Section 1005 is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest….

Race or ethnicity is the sole, inflexible factor that determines the availability ofrelief provided by the Government under Section 1005….

Having considered all of the pertinent factors associated with the narrow tailoring analysis and the record presented by the parties, the Court is not persuaded that the Government will be able to establish that Section 1005 is narrowly tailored to serve its compelling governmental interest. The constitutional right to equal protection guarantees that racial classifications will be permitted only with “the most exact connection between the justification and classification.” Wygant, 476 U.S. at 280. The evidence regarding Section 1005’s enactment presents some connection between the justification and the race-based relief but falls short of presenting an “exact connection.”

The court halted the program in its tracks:

Only a preliminary injunction halting the distribution of payments and debt relief under Section 1005 can give Plaintiff an opportunity to obtain any redress. Such an injunction certainly impacts the SDFRs counting on the debt relief. But the Court has carefully balanced the equities and is convinced that they favor the halting of a program that is significantly likely to violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Vilsack and others in the federal government were

immediately enjoined from issuing any payments, loan assistance, or debt relief pursuant to Section 1005(a)(2) of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 until further order from the Court.

The Biden administration is engaged in systemic racial discrimination against whites. Federal judges, so far, are halting the conduct again and again.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Vice Roy Joe is leading his party back to Jim Crow days.

JusticeDelivered | June 24, 2021 at 10:03 pm

People promoting this stuff seem to be oblivious to the damage it is doing to their cause. All the benefits they currently enjoy are only possible if the majority of other races are on board to continue those programs.

If their attempt to take over fails, they are really going to be screwed.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to JusticeDelivered. | June 24, 2021 at 11:47 pm

    If their cause is the imposition of tyranny, it is more a case of do it now before people start to resist. I for one am amazed that there are judges ruling according to the letter of the law and the Constitution. And noting that these are all lower level judges, I would not be surprise if higher courts impose anti-White [and anti-Asian] discrimination as the law of the land.

    Subotai Bahadur

      CommoChief in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | June 25, 2021 at 8:21 am


      In this case and like it; dealing with individual rights and equal protection, you shouldn’t be surprised. The CT know that allowing the imposition of a ‘race’ based system that currently disfavor one group might be changed to disfavor different groups in the future.

      Do we have activist Judges who put their thumb on the scale? Absolutely. In cases like this even they will be hesitant to create a precedent that would almost certainly be used at some point to disfavor other groups.

      Milhouse in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | June 25, 2021 at 8:34 am

      You should not be amazed. It’s completely normal and expected. There are some unfortunate exceptions, but this is the norm, and pretty much always has been.

Yet another Biden program…

This is just another box car in Joe Biden’s long and continuos never-ending freight train.

“Yet another RACIST Democrat policy….”

Why not call them out on their overt RACISM??

Unlike when D’s play the race card, to silence opposition on issues they can no longer debate, the D’s policies are objectively incredibly RACIST.

Shine a light on that!

    Ben Kent in reply to Aarradin. | June 27, 2021 at 3:22 pm

    Media looks the other way when it is Dem racism.

    If a Republican had proposed legislation that discriminated again some group – it would have been front page news and would have got story after breathless story plus backstory and whistleblower and lost of speculative “what if” stories about other discrimination that may come down the line.

    Yet reporters still protest that they are “journalists” and tell us it’s unfair to call them “fake news”.

drsamherman | June 25, 2021 at 1:06 am

At least in this question, looks like Biteme’s DOJ is batting 0%.

Perhaps there is a very, very scant reflection of impartiality in the otherwise corrupt US judiciary.

Being a non-white farmer was the ONLY criteria for establishing harm. No actual evidence needed. And being white is being guilty so the resulting harm to white farmers is justified. Luckily, white farmer Scott Wynn found a judge who wouldn’t toss the lawsuit for lack of standing.

There’s been a lot of that going around. Giulliani just got temporarily disbarred from NY for “lying” because judges wouldn’t allow evidence to be presented to the court.

    Pepsi_Freak in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 25, 2021 at 11:32 pm

    It’s a New York state court, and they are notoriously corrupt. The fact that they refused to even hold a hearing before declaring Giuliani “guilty” and stripped him of his right to practice law in New York is not going to look good when the case gets into Federal court (where they sometimes take “due process” seriously).

The White Male is now a punching bag, Emmanuel Goldstein two-minutes hate object.
Revenge is the goal.

Hang on, wasn’t there already a national injunction against this very program issued in Wisconsin 2 weeks ago? Doesn’t that make this injunction redundant? Surely once the program stopped two weeks ago there was no longer an emergency, and therefore no need for another injunction. Was this judge simply unaware of it, and did nobody bring it to her attention? Or has the program been going on anyway, in which case has nobody brought the contempt to the attention of the Wisconsin judge?

When will these STUPID Morons understand you can’t stop Racial Discrimination with Racial Discrimination? And my apologies to real morons if I insulted you comparing them to all of you.

    artichoke in reply to Alan. | June 25, 2021 at 10:50 am

    Oh, they understand it. They intend to discriminate against you, as much as they can, for as long as they can, and not give any gains back. And they’ll throw whatever verbal chaff they can to make it less obvious.

It shows how far gone around the bend the US Congress is, that Federal judges have to be “halting the conduct again and again.”

My God, how viciously they hate us!

A silver lining in a front of dark, ominous storm clouds.

I’ll take it.

Seems to me the courts keep declaring Dementia Josef Stolen the communist pedophile traitor a racist, his Exalted Cyclops of the KKK friend and mentor would be proud.

Unbelievable, the brazen gall of this vile Administration and its Dhimmi-crat allies, advancing blatantly racist programs under the guise of allegedy serving “social justice.” This is truly evil and despicable, both the agenda, and, the animating political ethos behind it.

Retired in Chicago | June 29, 2021 at 11:18 pm

so again the court said President Biden is racist and biased against whites. I can’t help but wonder why is he still in office? if the courts have already decided isn’t it a done deal? impeach 46 impeach 46 impeach 46