A federal judge in Texas has ruled that a 55-year-old agency designed to help minority-owned businesses must now serve all races. This decision could have significant implications for similar government programs across the country. And in the 93 page ruling issued, one thing stood out that I have not heard before. Quoting from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, the Honorable Mark T Pittman had this to say,
Plaintiffs hail from different states and have different circumstances, backgrounds, and businesses. But they have much in common: they all worked hard to get where they are, they all overcame obstacles in pursuit of the American Dream, they all care deeply for their businesses, and they all wanted — but couldn’t obtain — assistance from the same federal program. They’re also all white, a salient detail in this case.
Of course, the Agency has secondary and tertiary effects that benefit non-minorities, as an economy is only as strong as its weakest link. But that was little comfort to Plaintiffs when the Agency wouldn’t help them because of their skin color. While Plaintiffs interfaced with the Agency in different ways, all roads led to the same conclusion: the MBDA isn’t for them because they aren’t on its list of preferred races.
This is historic, albeit over the past several decades the federal judiciary has been walking back the explicitly racist — I know, ironic, huh — application of federal funds for everyone except white people. In fact, in the 93 page ruling, the word white was specifically mentioned 14 times. And the citation of similar cases throughout show that the days of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) are soon to be laid in a grave where they should be.
Judge’s Reasoning and Potential Impact
Judge Mark T. Pittman ruled that the Minority Business Development Agency’s (MBDA) focus on race violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. He said the agency’s assumption that minority businesses are inherently disadvantaged was unfair and likened it to past discrimination against other groups. Legal experts believe this ruling, if upheld, could affect dozens of federal programs that use race as a factor in determining eligibility for aid. Judge Pittman sums it up succulently, as quoted by the Washington Post,
“If courts mean what they say when they ascribe supreme importance to constitutional rights, the federal government may not flagrantly violate such rights with impunity. The MBDA has done so for years. Time’s up,” wrote Pittman.
The ruling permanently enjoins the MBDA from extending services based on an applicant’s race as it violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. The ruling is an incredible gold mine of documentable racism targeted specifically against white people. Take, for example,
Under 15 U.S.C. § 9501(15)(B), Oprah Winfrey is presumptively disadvantaged, while Plaintiffs and even more disadvantaged Americans are not. While illogical, this wouldn’t be a problem if the presumption wasn’t based on race.
This builds out heavily when judicial scrutiny is applied,
Most of the above issues stem from stereotypes underlying the Agency’s presumption. There isn’t anything inherently race-conscious about serving “socially or economically disadvantaged individual[s].” 15 U.S.C. § 9501(15). But the MBDA Statute defines “social or economic disadvantage” in racial terms. Id. Nor does a business owner’s race inherently suggest anything about disadvantage. But the MBDA Statute defines “minority owned business enterprise” in terms of “social or economic disadvantage.” See 15 U.S.C. § 9501(9). Indeed, as far as the Agency is concerned, race is a reliable proxy for disadvantage, at least with respect to the listed groups. Thus, if a business owner belongs to an enumerated group, he or she is entitled to services without regard to their life circumstances, financial performance, or any social or economic metrics of “disadvantage.” See 15 C.F.R. § 1400.1(b) (“Designation establishes eligibility status [ ] for MBDA funded programs.”). The inverse is true, too. No matter how disadvantaged an entrepreneur may be, the Agency presumes otherwise if they aren’t on the list. Id. The illogic is absolutely radiant.
Reaction and Arguments
The decision has been praised by conservative activists who see it as a victory for equality.
Conversely, Democrats and minority business advocates fear it will harm efforts to address historical disadvantages faced by minority-owned businesses. They argue that the MBDA’s programs play a vital role in helping these businesses access capital and government contracts. It builds upon the roll back of the minority only favoritism which the Biden Administration has been unleashing upon the American Public. The Washington Post covered the Supreme Court’s ruling last year, which became the largest rollback of woke admissions,
The Supreme Court on [29 June 2023] held that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, a historic ruling that rolls back decades of precedent and will force a dramatic change in how the nation’s private and public universities select their students.
And only a few weeks later later, the Washington Post went on to report upon yet another federal ruling striking at the very core of the Biden Administration’s wokeness,
The Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development program was meant to open a pipeline to billions in government contracting dollars for historically disadvantaged groups. But in July, a federal judge in Tennessee struck down a provision of the program that equated race with social disadvantage.
The decision marks the latest blow to government affirmative action programs in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings against Harvard and the University of North Carolina last June. The high court’s finding upended race-conscious college admissions and sparked a broad legal offensive against affirmative action and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs in the private and public sectors. Within weeks, a federal judge in Tennessee struck down a provision of the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development program that equated race with social disadvantage as unconstitutional, forcing the agency to overhaul it.
Looking Ahead
The Justice Department is expected to appeal the ruling. The case is likely to be closely watched as it could set a precedent for future legal challenges to affirmative action programs. And this is part of the problem we are encountering with the woke Biden Administration. Implementing racist infrastructure to combat racism is the pot calling the kettle black. And go no further than the application of this wokeness than HUD’s Acting Deputy Director of Procurement, Craig Karnes, and his protection of Eduardo San Roman and 24 Asset Management. We have written dozens of articles which culminated with Karnes’ meal ticket jeopardized by San Roman’s fraud of nearly one million dollars committed against Labor and the recent stop payments issued by San Roman on other checks issued.
Additional Information
The MBDA was established in 1969 and provides assistance to minority-owned businesses in securing financing and navigating government contracting. In 2021, it received a significant funding boost and became a permanent agency. The agency reports that it helped minority businesses secure $1.6 billion in contracts and raise $1.2 billion in capital in fiscal year 2022.
