The American Rescue Plan Act provides a limited amount of money for restaurants to recover from losses they suffered from COVID-19. The money that the Act provides to get restaurants back on their feet has been called a restaurant revitalization fund.
Yes, I know, the 'company line' is that the American Rescue Plan Act involves a lot of money, and it does. In the case of aid to recovering restaurants, however, the funds provided in the Act are limited and, some say, too small to meet the needs.
In May, five federal judges considered complaints from a couple of businesses that claimed they were discriminated against. They claimed that they suffered from discrimination under the American Rescue Plan Act because the Small Business Administration (SBA) paid out the available revitalization funds first to so-called "priority" restaurants whereas they themselves were "non-priority" for the money that the Act makes available.
"Priority" restaurants under the Act are owned by women, by veterans, or by "socially and economically disadvantaged" people. The plaintiffs claimed that they were discriminated against because they are not women and not socially or economically disadvantaged, i.e., because they are White males who are socially or economically advantaged, in other words. It is unclear, frankly, whether any of the plaintiffs are or have ever been veterans.
The problem at the center of both of their two cases was the same: Under the American Rescue Plan Act, the restaurant revitalization funds were supposed to be released for the first 21 days only to restaurants owned by women, by veterans, or by people who are socially or economically disadvantaged. After that, the Act provided that all the applicants could receive the money whether they were prioritized for the first 21 days or not. This was the problem at the center of the plaintiffs' arguments in both cases to all five judges: The plaintiffs were afraid that they would not get money.
Whatever you may end up thinking about the merits of these decisions, one way or the other, remember what the cases were about: The plaintiffs were afraid that they would not get their money. All the idealistic-sounding pronouncements that will certainly come from the winning parties cannot obscure that central fact: They sued because they wanted to get their money.
That shouldn't obscure how close a thing it was, either. The same people who want to pose as nothing but idealists did not win by much at all. Five federal judges considered these complaints. Three liked the complaints, and thought that they were good. Two did not.
Three to two. That's how the judges lined up their votes on the matter in two separate cases.
What's more, you will almost certainly hear that these decisions should be seen as a triumph for even-handed justice. Except it seems that the thing was not handled very evenly in either case. In both of these cases, the opinion blocking the SBA from carrying out the restaurant revitalization fund written in the Act, was in turn written by a person who was either on or, in at least one case, led a central committee for the political party that opposed the American Rescue Plan Act in the first place.
It is also important to put the rulings in their proper context to know more about at least one of the judges. The judge in the Texas case is named Reed O'Connor. You may remember his name from his opinion that has received heavy criticism for its logic, or absence of it some say, in ruling that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because it imposes no penalties.
In addition, it is worth noting that the plaintiffs in both cases challenging the SBA are represented by, among others, an interesting cast of characters. The plaintiff in one case is from Tennessee and is represented in part by an organization from Wisconsin which exists for the purpose of pushing litigation against the interests of people like women and in general against people who are socially or economically disadvantaged -- the very people involved here.
In the other lawsuit, the one filed in Texas, the plaintiffs are represented by among others, America First Legal Foundation. The founders of the foundation in this case are one Stephen Miller and several other departed -- or so we thought -- former officials of the prior regime.
In short, maintaining power by claiming the idealism of disinterested equality in an overwhelming victory, that's how the story will be sold. How in character for these men (and they are all men, did you notice?).
Now you and I both know the real story of these two lawsuits.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2021 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.