On March 12, president Biden signed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan into law.
Part of the rescue plan designated $29 billion for a Restaurant Revitalization Fund grant program for small privately-owned business.
The grant program gave priority status to specific racial and ethnic groups and women.
6th Circuit Court Rules Race Priority Unconstitutional
Judge Amul Roger Thapar gave the majority opinion.
"THAPAR, Circuit Judge. This case is about whether the government can allocate limited coronavirus relief funds based on the race and sex of the applicants. We hold that it cannot."
The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Antonio Vitolo and his wife who owned a restaurant called Jake’s Bar and Grill.
Vitolo is white and his wife is Hispanic, and they each own 50% of the restaurant.
Vitolo's claim was forced to the back of the queue but they would have been at the front of the queue if the restaurant was 51% owned by a woman, veteran, or a socially disadvantage racial group.
The Vitolo's did not qualify as socially disadvantage because they are not 51% Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Native American.
Vitolo sued to end the race and sex preferences in grant funding, claiming that they violated his constitutional rights.
6th Court Ruling Synopsis
- Race: "Government policies that classify people by race are presumptively invalid."
- Compelling Interest: "The government’s asserted compelling interest meets none of 3 requirements."
- Narrow Tailoring: Even if the government had shown a compelling state interest in remedying some specific episode of discrimination, the discriminatory disbursement of Restaurant Revitalization Funds is not narrowly tailored to further that interest. The court ruled the government must show “serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives,” but failed to do so.
- Sex: "Like racial classifications, sex-based discrimination is presumptively invalid." The government "fails to show that prioritizing women-owned restaurants serves an important governmental interest."
Amusingly, the court commented " To have a legitimate interest in remedying sex discrimination, the government first needs proof that discrimination occurred."
It has been twenty-five years since the Supreme Court struck down the race-conscious policies in Adarand. And it has been nearly twenty years since the Supreme Court struck down the racial preferences in Gratz.
As today’s case shows once again, the “way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
The above emphasis in bold was mine. There was one dissent by Circuit Court Judge Bernice Bouie Donald.
In 7 pages of incorrect rambling starting on page 16 of the document., Donald believes as does Biden and Woke Progressives, that the way to stop race discrimination is to promote race discrimination.
Cheers to the 6th Circuit Court
Cheers to a ruling by the 6th Court that should have been unanimous.
I hope Biden appeals and the Supreme Court jams some badly needed common sense into Biden's head.
You do not fix past discriminations via a process of blatant discrimination. Period.
And in this case, the court found past discrimination lacking.