Programs that seek to remedy the issue of low funding for Black businesses are in jeopardy after an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals put a halt to the Fearless Fund. This week, a three-judge panel, two judges appointed by Donald Trump and one by President Barack Obama, ruled 2-1 that Fearless Fund is not protected by the First Amendment in its efforts to provide grants for Black women in business.
Civil Rights Attorney Kianna Chennault provided insight on the historic ruling.
“It’s a huge ruling,” Chennault said. “Just going back to last year when affirmative action was turned on its head by Supreme Court. As an attorney, we really look to pass rulings to dictate what future rulings will be. So in law, everything is built on precedent. And so when you see a ruling like the permanent action ruling from last summer, it turns 50 plus years of precedent on his head. The same thing happened with the Roe vs. Wade.”
The judges sided with Edward Blum, president of AAER. Blum is on a racially-charged mission to destroy the progression of Blacks in America. Blum has filed three lawsuits since August challenging grant and fellowship programs designed to help Black, Hispanic and other underrepresented minority groups achieve greater career opportunities.
“Edward Blum is not just going against Black-owned organizations that supports Black businesses or Black people, he’s actually going after organizations that champion diversity in general,” Chennault said. “He recently went after a Hispanic organization that granted scholarships to Hispanic students, and they settled with him outside of court. So he’s really going after diversity programs…Mr. Blum asked the court that the Fearless Fund program be prevented from proceeding while the matter was litigated, and so the district court said yes. The court ruled that the Fearless Fund program is likely to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. So they didn’t make a ruling that says it does violate, but they said it’s likely to violate so they did reinforce the injunction. By them doing that, the writing’s are on the wall. It’s sending a chilling effect on diversity programs.”
Chennault says that the ruling could have a negative impact on diversity programs as a whole.
“If a company like Fearless Fund has been attacked in this way, those smaller companies without those resources, they will be less likely to proceed with diversity programs,” she said. “In the affirmative action ruling, the court was very specific. They said, Hey, this only pertains to affirmative action in higher education settings. However, we all knew what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. So you guys are gonna do it over here. Somebody’s going to try and another category. So that’s what the plaintiff has done.”
About Post Author
