The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) is shaking things up with a high-stakes challenge against discrimination in farming assistance programs. In an amicus brief supporting farmer Robert Holman, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) argues that prioritizing specific races, such as minorities, for taxpayer-funded aid is unconstitutional. Holman, a corn and soybean farmer, is suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), claiming that these programs unfairly disadvantage non-minority farmers.
WILL’s deputy counsel, Dan Lennington, slammed the Biden administration, accusing it of spreading racial discrimination throughout the federal government. He argues that programs offering financial assistance and other benefits should be colorblind and that racial preferences in government programs are wrong. WILL claims it has found over 60 federal programs that allocate support based on race across 11 different agencies, including the USDA, the Small Business Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency. These programs are designed to help “socially disadvantaged” groups, but WILL says that this label unfairly assumes that some races are always disadvantaged while others are not.
The law firm makes a compelling case: these programs are built on ridiculous stereotypes that favor certain racial groups while ignoring others. And if that’s not bad enough, the very programs meant to help farmers like Holman are turning him away because he doesn’t check the right racial boxes. WILL is strongly urging the incoming Trump administration to take action on this issue by advocating for the immediate dismantling of race-based programs. It’s time to stop pretending that these policies are beneficial and start addressing the problems they have created.
If we are honest—WILL has a point here. Taxpayer-funded programs that give preference to beneficiaries based on race do not ensure fairness; they create favoritism. By calling for an end to race prioritization, WILL is not just opposing a policy; they advocate that aid should be provided based on need, not skin color. In the long run, they are correct: fairness should mean fairness for everyone.
