June, 17 2020, 12:00am EDT
ACLU, Civil Rights Organizations Sue the Small Business Administration for Excluding Business Owners with Criminal Records from COVID-19 Relief Loans
Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Public Interest Law Center, and Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop the Small Business Administration (SBA) from denying federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans to small business owners with criminal records. Congress has made hundreds of billions of dollars in PPP loans available to small businesses to keep them and their employees financially afloat in the wake of COVID-19's massive economic impact.
BALTIMORE
Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Public Interest Law Center, and Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop the Small Business Administration (SBA) from denying federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans to small business owners with criminal records. Congress has made hundreds of billions of dollars in PPP loans available to small businesses to keep them and their employees financially afloat in the wake of COVID-19's massive economic impact. However, the SBA's exclusionary rules shut out many tax-paying small business owners with past criminal records, a group that is disproportionately Black and Latinx.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the following plaintiffs: Defy Ventures, a nonprofit organization that works with formerly incarcerated people to provide them entrepreneurial training and support; John Garland, a Black majority owner of graphic design business FastsignsBethpage, Inc. and advocate for the formerly incarcerated; and Sekwan Merritt, a Black small business owner who owns and operates a small electrical contracting business, Lightning Electric. Garland was unable to apply for a PPP loan due to a pending misdemeanor charge for which he has not been convicted and that he denies. Merritt was denied a PPP loan because he is still on parole for a 2012 drug conviction. Law firms Jenner & Block and Weil, Gotshal & Manges also represent the plaintiffs.
"The SBA's discrimination against formerly incarcerated individuals hurts not just those of us who have worked hard to create our own businesses after returning home, but also impacts our families, the people who work for us, and our communities," said plaintiff Sekwan Merritt. "Through my electrical contracting business, Lightning Electric, I want to provide hope and opportunity for folks who were formerly incarcerated. However, as it stands, the SBA blocks the path to economic equality and progress for people who come from underserved communities and who are disproportionately affected by mass incarceration."
The lawsuit challenges the Small Business Administration's interim final rule and application form barring individuals with certain criminal histories -- such as those with pending charges, those serving parole, probation, or those who have been convicted of a felony within the last year -- from applying for PPP loans. The civil rights organizations argue that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act by adding exclusions to the PPP that were not authorized by the CARES Act and are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Given that PPP loan applications are due by June 30, the lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction to immediately halt the rule requiring a criminal background screen, and an extension of the PPP application deadline for those applicants unlawfully excluded under the challenged criminal-record exclusions.
"Formerly incarcerated individuals who have paid their debt to society deserve a fair chance to succeed," said plaintiff Andrew Glazier, CEO of Defy Ventures. "The criminal justice system already disproportionately impacts people of color, and destructive policies that create unnecessary barriers to much-needed resources -- such as the PPP -- serve only to amplify the structural racism in our justice system. The SBA's role is to support the success of small businesses, not to impose rules based on uninformed and discriminatory value judgements on their worthiness to receive support. It is long past time to eliminate rules like these."
The SBA's rules have a disparate impact on people of color, who are more likely to have a criminal record due to the systemic overcriminalization of Black and Brown communities. In addition, due to widespread barriers to employment, people with past criminal records often turn to entrepreneurship as a way to support their families and contribute to their communities. The SBA's exclusion has the potential to impact both small business owners with past criminal records, a population that is already disadvantaged in the workplace, and the economies of the communities they serve.
"I am the owner of a growing small business, which not only provides a livelihood for myself and our employees, but provides necessary services to the community and other businesses," said plaintiff John Garland. "There is no reason that our business should be denied the chance to survive this crisis and continue to grow into the future or that my employees should not be able to be paid because I have pending misdemeanor charges for which I strenuously maintain my innocence."
Individuals involved in the case commented:
ReNika Moore, director of the ACLU's Racial Justice Program: "The SBA's misguided rule excluding small business owners from federal aid based on their contact with the criminal legal system ignores the job opportunities, products, and services they provide to their communities. The excluded small business owners are more likely to be Black and Latinx because of bias in our criminal legal system, and their communities are hardest hit by COVID-19. We won't stop fighting until this economic lifeline is afforded to all."
Claudia De Palma, staff attorney at the Public Interest Law Center: "Even in the best of times, the millions of Americans with arrest and conviction records face widespread bias and discrimination in the job market. By arbitrarily denying emergency aid to small businesses owned by Americans with records--businesses like Lightning Electric, which often hires returning citizens--the SBA is dragging down the recovery of entire communities and exacerbating the outsized impact the pandemic has had on communities of color, which are also disproportionately affected by the criminal legal system. An economic crisis is not the time to create additional barriers to desperately needed support, particularly to small businesses that are part of the fabric of neighborhoods across America."
Joanna Wasik, counsel at Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs: "Formerly incarcerated business owners deserve the right to apply for SBA's forgivable loans.We should celebrate the accomplishments of formerly incarcerated individuals who are contributing to their communities, not shut them out from aid at a time of acute financial crisis. The SBA's exclusion compounds the already devastating impacts that communities of color are facing from the COVID-19 pandemic Congress did not provide any exclusions when it passed the CARES Act, and the SBA has provided no good reason for them."
Kali N. Bracey, partner, Jenner & Block: "Small businesses provide an important opportunity for people of color, who are disproportionately criminalized and incarcerated, to rebuild their lives following contact with the criminal justice system. The SBA's implementation of the CARES Act unlawfully prevents small business owners who have had felony convictions from receiving funds. These restrictions undermine the entire purpose of the CARES Act and PPP loan program -- which Congress designed to get loans to those who need it most. This lawsuit seeks to make good on Congress's promise: That PPP funds reach all eligible small businesses to help their employees and to end the discrimination against small business owners of color."
Zachary D. Tripp, partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges: "Congress created the PPP program to provide emergency relief to all small businesses and the millions of Americans who work for them. But the SBA's categorical disqualification of small businesses based on their owners' past interactions with the criminal-justice system unlawfully denies that aid to American entrepreneurs who, despite barriers and stigma associated with their criminal history, have started businesses that contribute to the economic vitality of their communities. The SBA's actions particularly hurt communities of color, which are already disproportionately harmed by the pandemic. Our lawsuit seeks to prevent the SBA from denying promised relief to many of those who need it the most."
The final complaint can be found here: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/defy-ventures-et-al-v-united-states-small-business-administration
A video on the filing can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwnqEv7__mc&feature=youtu.be
This case was filed in the United States District Court, District of Maryland.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Roughly 900 US Troops Still in Syria as Rebels Close in on Damascus
"Whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not," U.S. troops "are likely involved in the broader conflict unfolding there right now," warned one analyst.
Dec 07, 2024
Syrian rebel groups' rapid advance on the nation's capital city of Damascus and the possible collapse of President Bashar al-Assad's government after more than a decade of civil war has brought renewed attention to the continued presence of U.S. forces in the country, despite the absence of a clear legal authorization.
The U.S. is believed to have around 900 troops deployed to Syria, mostly in the northeast, as well as an unknown number of private contractors. Nick Turse, a contributing writer for The Intercept, observed Thursday that American forces in Syria "have, on average, come under fire multiple times each week since last October," according to internal Pentagon statistics.
"Keeping military personnel in harm's way for the sake of foreign policy credibility has become increasingly risky with the Gaza war and the flare-up of the Syrian civil war," Turse wrote.
Kelley Vlahos, senior adviser to the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote Saturday morning that "whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not," U.S. troops "are likely involved in the broader conflict unfolding there right now."
Reutersreported Tuesday that as rebels advanced toward the city of Hama, "fighters from a U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led coalition battled government forces in the northeast, both sides said, opening a new front along a vital supply route" and "compounding Assad's problems."
As the coalition of groups led by the Islamist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and factions of the Turkey-backed Syrian National Army has quickly seized control of large swaths of territory, the White House National Security Council (NSC) said in a statement last weekend that the U.S.—which has previously armed and trained Syrian rebels—"has nothing to do with this offensive."
"The United States, together with its partners and allies, urge de-escalation, protection of civilians and minority groups, and a serious and credible political process that can end this civil war once and for all with a political settlement consistent with UNSCR 2254," said NSC spokesperson Sean Savett. "We will also continue to fully defend and protect U.S. personnel and U.S. military positions, which remain essential to ensuring that ISIS can never again resurge in Syria."
On Friday, the White House said in a letter to Congress that "a small presence of United States Armed Forces remains in strategically significant locations in Syria to conduct operations, in partnership with local, vetted ground forces, to address continuing terrorist threats emanating from Syria."
President-elect Donald Trump, who during his first term opted to keep U.S. troops in Syria for the openly stated purpose of exploiting the country's oil fields, wrote in a social media post on Saturday that "the United States should have nothing to do with" the current conflict.
"This is not our fight," he wrote in all caps. "Let it play out. Do not get involved!"
Trump's post, as The Associated Pressreported, came as rebels' "stunning march across Syria gained speed... with news that they had reached the suburbs of the capital and with the government forced to deny rumors that President Bashar al-Assad had fled the country."
Hassan Abdul-Ghani, an insurgent commander, said in a Telegram post that rebels are entering the "final stage" of their offensive as they began to encircle Syria's capital. Citing unnamed local sources, Al Jazeerareported that "a state of panic has spread as army troops withdraw from their positions around Damascus."
"They also confirmed that opposition forces had advanced in the western Damascus countryside and the withdrawal of army forces from cities and towns in Eastern Ghouta," the outlet added. "There was a rush for food items in markets in the capital."
Government forces have been backed by Russian airstrikes, Hezbollah, and Iraqi militia fighters.
Reutersreported that "Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in an Arabic-language interview that Tehran would consider sending troops to Syria if Damascus asked, and Russian President Vladimir Putin urged an end to 'terrorist aggression' in Syria."
In a video statement on Saturday, a Syrian military commander said that "our valiant army continues to carry out its operations against terrorist gatherings at high rates in the directions of the Hama and Homs countrysides and the northern Daraa countryside, inflicting hundreds of deaths and injuries on the terrorists."
Anti-war lawmakers in the U.S. have repeatedly questioned the role of American troops in Syria in recent years and launched efforts to force their withdrawal.
In March 2023, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House put forth a resolution that would have required full withdrawal of American forces from Syria within 180 days of passage in the absence of congressional action authorizing their continued presence.
The resolution was voted down by 170 Republicans and 150 Democrats.
Months later, the U.S. Senate tanked a similar effort.
Erik Sperling, executive director of the advocacy group Just Foreign Policy, told The Intercept on Thursday that the Biden administration hasn't "put the war in Syria up for debate because they know the American people don't want another war in the Middle East."
"They know there is no popular support for putting U.S. troops at risk for this," said Sperling, who warned that "many of Trump's advisers will try to drag him deeper into this regional conflict in the Middle East."
The explosion of Syria's civil war in recent days has been disastrous for civilians in the crossfire.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Wednesday that "the outbreak of major hostilities... raises concerns that civilians face a real risk of serious abuses at the hands of opposition armed groups and the Syrian government."
"The bloody record of atrocities by all parties to the conflict in Syria is bound to persist until leaders go beyond words and support accountability efforts," said Adam Coogle, HRW's deputy Middle East director. "Without credible justice, there will be no end in sight to the suffering Syrians have endured, no matter who controls the land."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fury as South Korea's Conservative Party Thwarts Impeachment Vote
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," said the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.
Dec 07, 2024
A bid to impeach South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol over his short-lived imposition of martial law failed Saturday after lawmakers from his conservative party left the National Assembly chamber and refused to take part in the vote.
Supporters of impeachment needed at least eight members of Yoon's People Power Party (PPP) to support removing the president, who apologized to the nation in a one-minute-long address Saturday morning but refused to step down after he briefly instituted martial law in a stated attempt to "eradicate shameful pro-North Korea" forces, plunging the country into a political crisis.
Yoon's gambit sparked immediate and sustained protests and was widely seen as a coup attempt.
Saturday's impeachment effort drew a massive number of people into the streets outside the National Assembly building despite below-freezing temperatures, and demonstrators voiced outrage when they learned that Yoon's allies thwarted the initial attempt to oust him. Just two PPP members returned to the National Assembly chamber to cast a ballot Saturday.
"I am so angry. I can't find the words to describe my frustration," 23-year-old Kim Hyo-lim toldThe New York Times. "I am devastated, but I feel honored to be a part of this historic moment for my country."
Another demonstrator said they intend to protest "every weekend" until Yoon is removed.
(Photo: Daniel Ceng/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Organizers said roughly a million people took part in demonstrations Saturday in support of Yoon's impeachment. Many also demanded his arrest.
The Financial Timesreported following the failed impeachment effort that Yoon—whose term expires in 2027—and PPP leaders "appeared to have reached a deal whereby the president would hand over political direction of the country to his party and agree to stand down at a time of the party's choosing, in return for support in the impeachment vote."
The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), which has over 1.1 million members, called PPP lawmakers who boycotted Saturday's vote "accomplices in treason."
"The People Power Party has turned its back on the people's wishes, effectively admitting their complicity," KCTU said in a statement posted to social media. "More than one million citizens gathered in front of the National Assembly. They came together because they cannot forgive a president who declared martial law and aimed weapons at his own people. Despite the cold winter weather, they took to the streets hoping desperately for the impeachment to pass."
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," KCTU added. "They saw clearly who stands with those who would harm our democracy. The People Power Party must be dissolved. Those who protect Yoon must face consequences. It would be a grave mistake to think this can be resolved through compromise or constitutional amendments for an early resignation. Through the people's judgment, Yoon, his associates, and the People Power Party will face severe consequences."
Opposition lawmakers are expected to file a fresh impeachment motion next week as pressure mounts for Yoon to step down.
Additionally, as The Washington Postreported, "the national police have opened an investigation into Yoon on treason accusations by opposition parties and activists."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Democrat Issues Warning Over Trump Plot to 'Steal' From Federal Programs
"The Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro.
Dec 07, 2024
The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee warned Friday that President-elect Donald Trump is planning to "steal from the programs and services that affect middle-class, working, and vulnerable families" by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said in a statement that Trump's strategy, known as "impoundment," is "uninformed and unconstitutional," adding that "the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Government Accountability Office are all in agreement—the Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress."
"It is the sworn duty of the president of the United States to faithfully execute the law," DeLauro added, "and appropriations laws are no exception."
In a new fact sheet, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee note that "the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and nowhere does it give the president any unilateral power to either temporarily or permanently impound—steal, withhold, or prevent from being spent—funds appropriated by Congress."
"The Framers were right to give Congress the power of the purse," the fact sheet states. "If the president had the unilateral power to decline to spend resources as directed by Congress, then those who rely on Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Medical Care, and other federal spending programs would be subject to the whims of the executive branch. The American people would be unable to depend on promises made by Congress in appropriations laws."
Trump has explicitly vowed to use impoundment to "squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings," a plan endorsed by the billionaire pair tapped by the president-elect to run a new commission tasked with identifying spending and regulations to slash.
"With impoundment, we can simply choke off the money," Trump declared in a campaign ad.
"They have no authority. Does anybody get that?"
Following Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss their plans for the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) with GOP lawmakers, The Washington Postreported that Republicans are "keen on expanding the president's power to impound spending—or refuse to spend money Congress authorizes."
"Musk and Ramaswamy said they were eager to test the constitutional limits of Trump's ability to unilaterally control spending decisions," the Post reported, citing two unnamed lawmakers. "Republicans largely left the more than two-hour meeting giddy."
Analysts argue Trump's plan to withhold federal spending would run afoul of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The law, as Propublica's Molly Redden explained, "forbids presidents from blocking spending over policy disagreements."
"A similar power grab led to his first impeachment," Redden wrote. "During his first term, Trump held up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine while he pressured President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open a corruption investigation into Joe Biden and his family. The U.S. Government Accountability Office later ruled his actions violated the Impoundment Control Act."
Democrats on the House Budget Committee recently pointed out that "although decided after the ICA passed, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Train v. City of New York that even without the ICA, the president does not have unilateral authority to impound funds."
That hasn't stopped Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy from exploring ways to cut or block spending without congressional approval.
In a Wall Street Journalop-ed published last month, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that "even without relying on" the view that the ICA is unconstitutional, "DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."
Housing assistance, childcare aid, student loan programs, and other spending would also be vulnerable under such an approach.
"They want [to cut] $2 trillion," DeLauro told reporters Thursday. "Think about the discretionary budget. It's $1.7 trillion. Where are they going for the money? Where are they going?"
"They have no authority," she added. "Does anybody get that?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular