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
Critics Shred JD Vance as He Shrugs Off Millions of Americans Losing Medicaid as 'Minutiae'
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Jul 01, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance took heat from critics this week when he downplayed legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing Medicaid coverage as mere "minutiae."
Writing on X, Vance defended the budget megabill that's currently being pushed through the United States Senate by arguing that it will massively increase funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which he deemed to be a necessary component of carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation operation.
"The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits," wrote Vance. "The [One Big Beautiful Bill] fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."
He then added that "everything else—the CBO score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions."
It was this line that drew the ire of many critics, as the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Senate version of the budget bill would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period, which would result in more than 10 million people losing their coverage. Additionally, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has proposed an amendment that would roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which would likely kick millions more off of the program.
Many congressional Democrats were quick to pounce on Vance for what they said were callous comments about a vital government program.
"So if the only thing that matters is immigration... why didn't you support the bipartisan Lankford-Murphy bill that tackled immigration far better than your Ugly Bill?" asked Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.). "And it didn't have 'minutiae' that will kick 12m+ Americans off healthcare or raise the debt by $4tn."
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Veteran healthcare reporter Jonathan Cohn put some numbers behind the policies that are being minimized by the vice president.
"11.8M projected to lose health insurance," he wrote. "Clinics and hospitals taking a hit, especially in rural areas. Low-income seniors facing higher costs. 'Minutiae.'"
Activist Leah Greenberg, the co-chair of progressive organizing group Indivisible, zeroed in on Vance's emphasis on ramping up ICE's funding as particularly problematic.
"They are just coming right out and saying they want an exponential increase in $$$ so they can build their own personal Gestapo," she warned.
Washington Post global affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor also found himself disturbed by the sheer size of the funding increase for ICE that Vance is demanding and he observed that "nothing matters more apparently than giving ICE a bigger budget than the militaries of virtually every European country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heinrich Should Be Ashamed': Lone Senate Dem Helps GOP Deliver Big Pharma Win
The provision, part of the Senate budget bill, was described as "a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars."
Jul 01, 2025
The deep-pocketed and powerful pharmaceutical industry notched a significant victory on Monday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a bill described by critics as a handout to drug corporations can be included in the Republican reconciliation package, which could become law as soon as this week.
The legislation, titled the Optimizing Research Progress Hope and New (ORPHAN) Cures Act, would exempt drugs that treat more than one rare disease from Medicare's drug-price negotiation program, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medications in a purported effort to encourage innovation. (Medications developed to treat rare diseases are known as "orphan drugs.")
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen observed that if the legislation were already in effect, Medicare "would have been barred from negotiating lower prices for important treatments like cancer drugs Imbruvica, Calquence, and Pomalyst."
Among the bill's leading supporters is Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), whose spokesperson announced the parliamentarian's decision to allow the measure in the reconciliation package after previously advising that it be excluded. Heinrich is listed as the legislation's only co-sponsor in the Senate, alongside lead sponsor Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
"Sen. Heinrich should be ashamed of prioritizing drug corporation profits over lower medicine prices for seniors and people with disabilities," Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. "Patients and consumers breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate parliamentarian stripped the proposal from Republicans' Big Ugly Betrayal, so it comes as a gut punch to hear that Sen. Heinrich welcomed the reversal and continued to champion a proposal that will transfer billions from taxpayers to Big Pharma."
"People across the country are demanding lower drug prices and for Medicare drug price negotiations to be expanded, not restricted," Knievel added. "Sen. Heinrich should apologize to his constituents and start listening to them instead of drug corporation lobbyists."
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobbying group whose members include pharmaceutical companies, has publicly endorsed and promoted the legislation, urging lawmakers to pass it "as soon as possible."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ORPHAN Cures Act would cost U.S. taxpayers around $5 billion over the next decade.
Merith Basey, executive director of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, said that "patients are infuriated to see the Senate cave to Big Pharma by reviving the ORPHAN Cures Act at the eleventh hour."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars," said Basey. "We call on lawmakers to remove this unnecessary provision immediately and stand with an overwhelming majority of Americans who want the Medicare Negotiation program to go further. Medicare negotiation will deliver huge savings for seniors and taxpayers; this bill would undermine that progress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Musk Gutting of USAID Could Lead to More Than 14 Million Deaths Over Five Years: Study
"For many low and middle income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict," said the coordinator behind the study.
Jul 01, 2025
A study published Monday by the medical journal The Lancet found that deep funding cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development, a main target of the Department of Government Efficiency's government-slashing efforts, could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by the year 2030.
For months, humanitarian programs and experts have sounded the alarm on the impact of cutting funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which is the largest funding agency for humanitarian and development aid around the globe, according to the study.
"Our analysis shows that USAID funding has been an essential force in saving lives and improving health outcomes in some of the world's most vulnerable regions over the past two decades," said Daniella Cavalcanti, postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Collective Health and an author of the study, according to a statement published Tuesday. Between 2001 and 2021, an estimated 91 million deaths were prevented in low and middle income countries thanks programs supported by USAID, according to the study.
The study was coordinated by researchers from the Barcelona Institute for Global Health with the help of the Institute of Collective Health of the Federal University of Bahia, the University of California Los Angeles, and the Manhiça Centre for Health Research, as well as others.
To project the future consequences of USAID funding cuts and arrive at the 14 million figure, the researchers used forecasting models to simulate the impact of two scenarios, continuing USAID funding at 2023 levels versus implementing the reductions announced earlier this year, and then comparing the two.
Those estimated 14 million additional deaths include 4.5 million deaths among children younger than five, according to the researchers.
The journalist Jeff Jarvis shared reporting about the study and wrote "murder" on X on Tuesday.
In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the 83% of the programs at USAID were being canceled. In the same post on X, he praised the Department of Government Efficiency, which at that point had already infiltrated the agency. "Thank you to DOGE and our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform," he wrote.
Davide Rasella, research professor at Barcelona Institute for Global Health and coordinator of the study, said in a statement Tuesday that "our projections indicate that these cuts could lead to a sharp increase in preventable deaths, particularly in the most fragile countries. They risk abruptly halting—and even reversing—two decades of progress in health among vulnerable populations. For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict."
One country where USAID cuts have had a particularly deadly impact is Sudan, according to The Washington Post, which reported on Monday that funding shortages have led to lack of medical supplies and food in the war-torn nation.
"There's a largely unspoken and growing death toll of non-American lives thanks to MAGA," wrote Ishaan Tharoor, a Post columnist, of the paper's reporting on Sudan.
In reference to the reporting on Sudan, others laid blame on billionaire Elon Musk, the billionaire and GOP mega-donor who was initially tapped to lead the Department of Government Efficiency.
"In a less imperfect world, Musk and [President Donald] Trump would be forever cast as killers of children, and this would be front-page news for months and the subject of Sunday sermons in every church," wrote the journalist David Corn.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular