Race and Gender Quotas In 2021 Infrastructure Law Challenged By Immigrant Who Fled Communist Romania
Contained in the $1.2 trillion Act was a “$37 billion fund … reserved for small businesses owned by certain minorities and women. Bruckner is a white male, so he is excluded.”
The Biden administration has a policy of inserting racially discriminatory provisions in its policies in the name of diversity, and has lost multiple court cases:
- Appeals Court Enjoins Biden’s Coronvirus Relief Favoring Non-Whites and Women (National)
- White Farmers Win Temporary Injunction Halting Biden Loan Forgiveness Program That Favored Non-Whites (Wisconsin, etc.)
- Yet Another Biden Program Favoring Non-Whites Halted By Federal Judge (Florida)
In the 2021 Infrastructure Act, which was “bipartisan,” the racial discrimination was right in the bill, allocating 10% of the massive funding for businesses owned by women and racial minorities. Now that legislative discrimination is being challenged.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, which is providing legal counsel in the suit, writes:
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed into law in November 2021, appropriated $1.2 trillion for new infrastructure projects. As part of this law, Congress authorized $370 billion in spending for roads, bridges, and other transportation projects. But the law contains a quota, requiring that at least 10% of all funding ($37 billion) go to small businesses owned by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.”
Federal regulations define “socially disadvantaged” as the following racial or ethnic groups: Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, or Subcontinent Asian Americans. And women are deemed “socially and economically disadvantaged.” Small businesses owned by males who are not in these preferred racial groups cannot compete for this money. This would include not only businesses owned by white males, but also males whose ancestors are from many countries in Central and South America, North Africa, the Middle East, and North and West Asia.
Christian Bruckner is an immigrant and disabled small-business owner from Tampa, Florida. His parents fled communist Romania in the 1970s and he was seriously injured in a car accident in 1989. He owns Project Management Corporation, a small business that fulfills government contracts, including those available under the recently passed infrastructure law. By virtue of his race (despite being a Romanian immigrant, he does not qualify) and his gender (men do not qualify), Bruckner is unable to compete for $37 billion in infrastructure contracts.
The Complaint provides, in part:
1. On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law the “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,” a $1.2 trillion spending bill to improve America’s infrastructure. As part of this bill, Congress authorized $370 billion in new spending for roads, bridges, and other surface transportation projects. But Congress also implemented a set aside, or quota, requiring that at least 10% of these funds be reserved for certain “disadvantaged” small businesses. According to the White House, the law reserves more than $37 billion in contracts to be awarded to “small, disadvantaged business contractors.”1
2. As an immigrant and disabled small business owner who lives and works in an a historically underutilized community, Plaintiff Christian Bruckner should be the type of person who could benefit from this program to help disadvantaged small business owners. But he cannot. Bruckner cannot compete for these infrastructure projects because of his race and gender. Defendants’ $37 billion fund is reserved for small businesses owned by certain minorities and women. Bruckner is a white male, so he is excluded.
3. “The Constitution created a government dedicated to equal justice under law.” Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 19 (1958). The Constitution forbids discrimination by the federal government “against any citizen because of his race,” Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 216 (1995) (citations omitted), as well as on account of gender, United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 532 (1996).
4. The Infrastructure Act does just that: it sets an unlawful quota based on race and gender. At least 10% of all contracts for certain infrastructure projects must be awarded based on race and gender.
5. This quota is unconstitutional. Defendants have no justification for the Act’s $37 billion race-and-gender quota. This Court should therefore declare this quota unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement, just as other courts have similarly enjoined other race-and-gender-based preferences in the American Rescue Plan Act. E.g., Vitolo v. Guzman, 999 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2021) (injunction against $28.6 billion Restaurant Revitalization Fund priority period); Faust v. Vilsack, 519 F. Supp. 3d 470 (E.D. Wis. 2021) (injunction against $4 billion Farmer Loan Forgiveness program).
WII Attorney Dan Lennington discusses the lawsuit:
I am awaiting an appeal hearing date in my lawsuit challenging New York State’s racially discriminatory Covid therapeutic guidelines. And Legal Insurrection Foundation filed an Amicus Brief challenging racial discrimination in higher ed admissions.
How’s this for an idea: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.