'What are the facts?

Nonprofit membership organization brought action alleging that venture capital fund's entrepreneurship funding competition open only to businesses owned by Black women violated § 1981's prohibition against discrimination in making or enforcement of contracts. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, No. 1:23- cv-03424-TWT, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., Senior District Judge, denied organization's motion for preliminary injunction, and it appealed.

What are the Court's Holding?

The Court of Appeals, Newsom, Circuit Judge, held that: [1] organization was not required to provide names of its affected members in order to establish its standing; [2] organization sufficiently alleged that its affected members were able and ready to enter competition to establish its Article III standing; [3] competition was “contract” within meaning of § 1981; [4] fund's unilateral post-suit amendment of its contest rules did not render suit moot; [5] competition did not fall within scope of § 1981's remedial-program exception; and [6] organization was likely to succeed on merits of its claim.

What are the facts?

Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC) are two of the oldest and most prestigious colleges in the United States, known for their highly selective admissions processes. Both universities considered race as one of several factors in their holistic review of each applicant. Belonging to certain minority races represented a “plus” to the universities, which sought racial diversity on its campus and related educational benefits. The universities tracked their student bodies by racial categories, such as Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans, and aimed to prevent declines in specific racial groups from year to year. Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued each university separately, claiming that their admissions practices were discriminatory, particularly against Asian Americans, and amounted to unconstitutional racial balancing. SFFA argued that these practices violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs.

What is the Court's Holding?

In Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled that both institutions' use of race as a factor in their admissions processes was unconstitutional. The decision effectively ended the practice of affirmative action in college admissions, requiring schools to develop alternative methods to achieve diversity without considering race.

How does this impact the Black community?

The Supreme Court's decisions in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC have fundamentally altered the landscape of higher education admissions. Colleges can no longer consider race as a factor in their admissions process. As institutions adapt to these new legal constraints, the ongoing challenge will be to ensure that higher education remains inclusive and reflective of the diverse society it serves. Universities may turn to other factors, such as socioeconomic background, geographic location, and first-generation college status. However, these factors do not fully compensate for the exclusion of race.

For the Black community, this decision represents a significant setback in efforts to achieve educational equity and access. It is likely to reduce representation in higher education and

professional fields, such as medicine and law. As such, the long-term effects could exacerbate existing socioeconomic disparities by hindering the economic mobility of Black individuals.

What are the facts?

In Strickland et al. v. United States Department of Agriculture, a group of white male farmers from Texas challenged the USDA's disaster relief program. As part of its efforts to create equity, the program allocated more relief funds to "socially disadvantaged farmers," defined by USDA regulations to include racial minority groups and women. The plaintiffs argued that the USDA's program favored women and minority farmers over white male farmers, thus discriminating against them based on race and sex, violating the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs. Their motion relied on reasoning from Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which emphasizes race-neutral policies in public programs.

In its defense, the USDA asserted its goal of remedying the persistent effects of past discrimination, noting that minority farmers faced greater difficulties obtaining loans and credit and were in more precarious financial situations compared to white male counterparts. Studies indicate that farms owned by socially disadvantaged persons operate fewer acres, earn lower net incomes on average, and are more likely to hold loans for their farm businesses. These factors justified the relief measures designed to support disadvantaged farmers.

What is the Court's Holding?

The court partially granted the plaintiffs' motion. It enjoined the USDA from making or increasing payments or providing additional relief based on the "socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher" designation under the 2022 ERP. However, the court allowed the USDA to continue applying progressive factoring on future relief applications, provided it was done independently of any race or sex-based considerations.

How does this impact the Black community?

This ruling has significant implications for affirmative action policies and the distribution of relief funds to minority communities, including Black farmers. By mandating that relief programs be race-neutral, the decision challenges efforts to directly address and remediate historical and systemic discrimination through targeted support. It underscores ongoing legal and social debates about the best ways to achieve equity and justice in federal programs.

What are the facts?

Small business owned by white woman brought action against United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Small Business Administration alleging that agencies had engaged in race discrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment and § 1981 in using rebuttable presumption that members of certain racial minority groups were “economically and socially disadvantaged,” in making preferential contract awards to socially disadvantaged small businesses. USDA and SBA asserted that use of rebuttable presumption was to remedy effects of past racial discrimination in federal contracting.

What are the Court's Holding?

Small business had Article III standing; [2] agencies' use of rebuttable presumption fell within Congress's statutory framework; [3] use of rebuttable presumption could not be subjected to meaningful review in court's application of strict scrutiny; [4] use of rebuttable presumption did not serve compelling government interest; [5] use of rebuttable presumption was not narrowly tailored; and [6] court could enjoin agencies from using rebuttable presumption even though small business had only brought as-applied challenge. Plaintiff's motion granted in part and denied in part; defendant's motion denied; defendants enjoined.

What are the facts?

White owners of small businesses brought action for declaratory and injunctive relief against federal Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) and federal officials for violation of Fifth Amendment right to equal protection and to set aside unconstitutional agency action under Administrative Procedure Act (APA), based on MBDA's statutory race and ethnicity presumptions for grants of financial assistance by third-party operators of local business centers. Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

What are the Courts Holding?

The District Court, Mark T. Pittman, J., held that: [1] futility provided excuse, for purposes of injuryin-fact element for Article III standing, for a white owner's failure to apply for financial assistance; [2] defendants failed to show federal government's participation in private-sector racial discrimination in credit access for minority business enterprises (MBE), as would support compelling interest in race-based classification as remedy; [3] racial classifications were not narrowly tailored as remedy for historic race discrimination in federal contracting and public procurement markets; [4] district court would decline to vacate MBDA's regulations implementing statutory race and ethnicity presumptions; and [5] nationwide permanent injunction was warranted. Plaintiffs' motion granted in part; defendant's motion denied.