” When natural disasters strike, they do n’t discriminate based on race and sex. Neither does the Department of Agriculture”. That’s the concept from a group of landowners written in a court filing released on Monday.
A , a group of white farmers in Texas, is suing a federal judge to stop the U.S. Department of Agriculture from determining who receives disaster and pandemic plantation aid and how much, alleging the agency’s present administration’s eight emergency funding programs are unconstitutionally biased.
The USDA’s system, according to Just the News, appears to be rooted in an executive order that President Joe Biden signed. The USDA and Biden Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack are named in the complaint. The producers bringing the actions include Rusty Strickland, Alan and Amy West and Bryan Baker, all of Texas.
The farmers, who are represented by the Southeastern Legal Foundation, requested an emergency order from the U.S. District Court in Amarillo, Texas, to prevent any further honours being made on the grounds of race, gender, or other progressive standards.
” Enjoining USDA from using race, sex, or progressive factoring when administering the programs is warranted because Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that: ( 1 ) the programs, as currently administered, are unconstitutional, ( 2 ) USDA lacks statutory authority to run the programs in their current form, and ( 3 ) USDA failed to adequately explain changes in calculating payments when implementing progressive factoring”, the motion stated.
The Biden administration created a system that awards awards based on race, gender, or other” socially disadvantaged” traits, according to the farmers, which includes roughly$ 25 billion in disaster and pandemic aid approved by Congress for farmers in eight programs. For decision-making violates the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedures Act.
The court filing also includes the phrase” The Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all Americans regardless of their race or sex.”  ,” It even promises the separation of powers. Through the disputed crisis and pandemic reduction initiatives, USDA violated both promises.
The farmers cited evidence from the farmers that” USDA gives more money to some producers based on” race, gender, or other elements that Congress did not approve.
” USDA does this by first determining farmers who are black/African-American, American Indian, Northern local, Spanish, Asian-American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, or a lady as ‘ morally disadvantaged,'” the court filing said. Additionally, it offers farmers who fall under the category of morally disadvantaged more income for the same loss as non-underserved people, along with other preferential treatment.
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision next year, which outlaws cultural preferences in college admissions, is cited in part by Only the News, which justifies the demand for an order. It also quotes a statement from the great court that reads,” Eliminating racial bias means eliminating all of it.”
” Disasters do n’t discriminate, and USDA should n’t.” In reality, the Constitution prohibits it”, the lawyers said in a statement. ” Our daring clients- a group of Texas farmers whose members received significantly less money from USDA than they would have been if they had been of a different race or sex- filed this situation and are asking the judge to prevent USDA’s obvious discrimination,” said the court.