Supreme Court petitioned on exclusion of white farmers in Biden’s loan relief plan
Supreme Court Asked to Weigh Challenge Against Biden Administration’s Controversial COVID-19 Relief Policy
Exclusive: Farmer Excluded from Loan Forgiveness Program Based on Ethnicity
The Supreme Court was recently presented with a challenge against a now-defunct COVID-19 relief policy implemented by the Biden administration. The policy, which offered farm loan forgiveness exclusively to nonwhite ranchers, is being contested by Leisl Carpenter, a white farmer from Wyoming. Carpenter argues that she was unjustly excluded from the program due to her ethnicity.
In March 2021, President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 COVID-19 stimulus bill, which allocated $4 billion for loan forgiveness aimed at assisting socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. However, Carpenter’s petition, obtained by the Washington Examiner, reveals that she was denied access to the program solely based on her race.
Section 1005 of the ARPA established a debt relief program for “socially disadvantaged” ranchers during the pandemic, according to the Department of Agriculture.
“Carpenter was ineligible for Section 1005 debt relief because she is Caucasian,” Carpenter’s petition stated, highlighting the program’s violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the 5th Amendment.
Carpenter’s petition argues that the Farm Service Agency of the USDA defined “socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers” based on race shortly after the enactment of ARPA.
The Mountain States Legal Foundation initially brought Carpenter’s dispute, along with 11 other farmers who did not qualify for the loan forgiveness plan, to federal court. The program, which provided up to 120% debt relief for certain “socially disadvantaged” farmers and ranchers, was halted after a successful lawsuit in Tennessee. However, the federal government had already distributed approximately $1 million in test payments under the race-based provision before the program was stopped.
Although Carpenter’s case did not result in a successful injunction before Congress repealed Section 1005, the Inflation Reduction Act replaced the loan forgiveness program with a similar plan that does not mention race. The petition notes that Congress did not address the payments made by the USDA before the repeal.
Carpenter appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, challenging the federal district court’s ruling that the case became moot following the program’s repeal. However, the 10th Circuit held that Carpenter’s eligibility was determined by geography, stating that even if she were not white, she would have been excluded from the test payments because she lives in Wyoming rather than New Mexico.
The recent petition, filed with co-counsel Braden Boucek of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, asks the Supreme Court to determine whether Carpenter’s case is truly moot and whether this would set a precedent allowing the federal government to dismiss a lawsuit after an alleged violation of equal protections by a federal internal agency administration decision.
“The 10th Circuit’s rule creates a road map for invidious discrimination whenever the federal government wants to do something,” said William Trachman, Mountain States’ general counsel. He expressed concerns about the potential for government programs to prioritize race without facing consequences.
While the petition does not specify the damages Carpenter seeks, it emphasizes the ongoing unequal treatment she has experienced, raising constitutional questions that warrant the attention of the Supreme Court.
At least four justices must agree to take up the petition and vote to grant the case certiorari or hear it on the merits during an oral argument session.
Click here to read more from the Washington Examiner.
The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions each term and reviews a significant number of them during the justices’ long conference in the final week of September.
Read the petition in full:
LEISL M. CARPENTER, Petitio… by Kaelan Deese
What implications will the Supreme Court’s decision on this case have for future government programs that incorporate race as a determining factor for eligibility
E issue of the program’s constitutionality in its repeal of Section 1005.
Carpenter’s legal team argues that the country’s highest court should intervene to address the constitutional issue at hand. The petition states, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that ’racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state or local governmental actor, must be analyzed under a standard of strict scrutiny’.” It further asserts that the race-based loan forgiveness program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment by treating individuals differently based on their race.
This case raises important questions about the role of race in government policies and programs aimed at addressing social disparities. While the intention behind the loan forgiveness program was to help socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, the exclusion of individuals based on their race raises concerns about the fairness and legality of such policies.
The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to take up this case will have significant implications for future government programs that incorporate race as a determining factor for eligibility. It will serve as a precedent for the constitutionality of race-based policies, and will establish guidelines for how such programs should adhere to the principle of equal protection for all citizens.
The outcome of this case will also have implications for the ongoing national conversation surrounding racial equity and justice. Supporters of the loan forgiveness program argue that it is an important step towards correcting historical injustices faced by marginalized communities in the agricultural sector. Critics, however, contend that race-based policies perpetuate discrimination and undermine the principles of equal opportunity and meritocracy.
As the case awaits the Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear it, the debate around race-based policies and their impact on equal protection under the law continues. The outcome of this case will shape the future of government programs aimed at addressing social disparities and serve as a guideline for ensuring fairness and equal treatment for all citizens.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."