” When natural disasters strike, they do n’t discriminate based on race and sex. Neither does the Department of Agriculture”. That’s the concept a group of landowners wrote in a court filing that was made public 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 existing administration’s eight emergency funding programs are unconstitutionally unfair.
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 landowners 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 farmers claimed that the Biden administration has created a system that awards awards based on race, gender, or other” socially disadvantaged” traits and has taken roughly$ 25 billion in disaster and pandemic aid approved by Congress for farmers in eight programs. The Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedures Act of the Constitution are both at odds with this decision-making.
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 crisis and pandemic pleasure initiatives challenged here, USDA broke both claims.
The farmers claimed they could demonstrate that” USDA gives more money to some farmers based on” race, sex, or other components that were never approved by Congress.
” USDA does this by initial defining farmers who are black/African- British, American Indian, Northern local, Hispanic, Asian- National, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, or a woman as ‘ morally disadvantaged,'” the court filing said. Therefore, along with other preferential treatment, it gives farmers who qualify as politically disadvantaged more cash for the same loss as those who are not deemed to be underserved.
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision next year, which outlawed racial choices in college admissions, is cited in part by Only the News ‘ justification for the demand for an order. It even quotes from the great court’s statement that “eliminating racial bias means eliminating all of it.”
” Disasters do n’t discriminate, and USDA should n’t either.” In reality, the Constitution prohibits it”, the lawyers said in a statement. ” That is why our valiant clients – a group of Texas farmers– which includes three white men who received significantly less money from USDA than if they had been of a different race or sex – filed this situation and are asking the court to cease USDA’s obvious discrimination.”
