Staff Reports
On Monday, a contentious challenge concerning a COVID-19 relief policy that was discontinued during the Biden administration was presented to the Supreme Court. The policy mentioned above conferred farm loan forgiveness solely on ranchers belonging to nonwhite ethnic groups, an action that has elicited significant criticism. White Wyoming farmer Leisl Carpenter, who was denied program access on the basis of her ethnicity, filed a petition with the Supreme Court requesting a reassessment of the decision.
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1767567498038202804?s=20
The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, signed into law by President Joe Biden in March of that year, allocated $4 billion for the forgiveness of loans intended to assist socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. On the basis of her ethnicity, Carpenter, whose homestead in Big Laramie Valley, Wyoming, was adversely affected by the pandemic, was excluded from the program.
Section 1005 of the ARPA, according to the Department of Agriculture, instituted a debt relief program for ranchers who were deemed "socially disadvantaged" amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Carpenter filed the petition on the grounds that the program violated the equal protection guarantee enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Legal proceedings were initiated in federal court by the Mountain States Legal Foundation on behalf of Carpenter and eleven other farmers who were deemed ineligible for the loan forgiveness program.
The program was promptly terminated subsequent to a successful federal court case in Tennessee; nevertheless, this occurred subsequent to the federal government disbursing test payments totaling around $1 million under the race-based provision. Section 1005 was subsequently abolished by Congress following the August 2022 passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. An alternative initiative was implemented to expunge loans, which is similar in nature but does not make any discriminatory reference to race.
Carpenter lodged an appeal with the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing that the Wyoming federal district court erred in its ruling that the case ceased to exist after the program was repealed, in support of the Justice Department's assertion. The 10th Circuit upheld the district court's conclusion that the revocation "utterly eliminated any possibility of harm to equal protection."
Carpenter's latest petition to the Supreme Court raises the question of whether her case is truly moot and whether that would set a precedent allowing the federal government to dismiss a lawsuit on the grounds that a federal internal agency administration decision allegedly violated equal protections. The petition asserts that constitutional considerations ought to be given to the Court in light of her ongoing inequitable treatment.
In their defense, Carpenter's co-counsel argued that the 10th Circuit's ruling sets a precedent for discrimination by the federal government. Concerns were expressed regarding the potential for this decision to set the stage for future government initiatives that involve discriminatory treatment of individuals; thus, it is a critical issue that demands attention.
Each term, the Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions; consequently, the status of Carpenter's case's hearing is uncertain. Without a doubt, the contentious nature of the challenge and its potential implications for future government initiatives will undoubtedly elicit substantial interest and discourse.
The potential consequences of the Supreme Court's prerogative to hear Carpenter's case transcend the government's capacity to enact initiatives that may be construed as racial discriminatory. The final result of this dispute remains uncertain; nevertheless, it is beyond dispute that the subject under consideration raises significant constitutional concerns that necessitate thorough scrutiny.
