The Greene County Democrat

Tag: and U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures

  • Newswire : Scott Bill targets USDA Discrimination as Trump ends DEI protections

    By Stacy M. Brown
    Black Press USA Senior National Correspondent

    As the Trump administration moves to eliminate key diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) protections at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Democratic Congressman David Scott of Georgia has introduced legislation aimed at safeguarding the future of Black farmers and reversing decades of systemic discrimination.

    On July 17, Scott, a senior member of the House Agriculture Committee, introduced the Black Farmers and Socially Disadvantaged Farmers Increased Market Share Act of 2025. Illinois Democratic Congressman Jonathan Jackson, also a member of the committee, co-sponsored the bill, which aims to expand market access and enforce civil rights protections for farmers who have historically been denied equitable treatment by the federal government.

    “Generations of Black farmers have lost their land and livelihoods because of systemic discrimination and the federal government’s failures to meaningfully intervene,” Scott said. “Whereas they comprised over 14% of all U.S. farmers less than a century ago, they now represent less than 2%.”

    In 1920, there were nearly one million Black farmers in the United States. But today, fewer than 50,000 remain, Jackson said. “That’s a staggering 95% decline. This did not happen by accident — it is the result of broken policies, discriminatory lending practices, and a lack of market access,” he stated. The bill establishes a competitive grant program to support new and expanding food hubs that enable Black and minority farmers to access wholesale, retail, and institutional markets.
    It offers a 25% tax credit for agricultural products purchased from those food hubs. It also requires the USDA to prioritize procurement from socially disadvantaged farmers and establishes an independent Office of the Civil Rights Ombudsperson to assist farmers through civil rights claims. Additionally, the measure reforms USDA policies to provide monetary relief to farmers denied access to loan and payment programs due to discrimination.
    The bill’s release follows a sweeping policy reversal by the USDA, which recently announced it will no longer use the term “socially disadvantaged” to define farmers affected by racial, ethnic, or gender-based discrimination. That designation, first adopted in the 1990 Farm Bill, had been a critical foundation for programs that served Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian producers. According to Capital B News, the agency’s decision came in response to executive orders issued earlier this year by President Donald Trump that eliminated any mandates or programs supporting DEI. The USDA stated that it has “sufficiently” addressed its history of discrimination and that moving forward, it will adhere to a race- and gender-neutral framework.

    Lloyd Wright, a Virginia farmer and former USDA official, stated that the change will disproportionately affect Black farmers. “They’re eliminating socially disadvantaged and anything else dealing with DEI,” Wright told Capital B. “[The government] is going to take back the money — the little bit we were getting—and some of the outreach money will be clawed back.”
    Rep. Shontel Brown of Ohio, a vice-ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee, added that the USDA’s decision was part of “Trump’s resegregation agenda.” She called the rule “a deliberate and disgraceful step backward,” and said the “socially disadvantaged” label was long overdue recognition of the systemic denial of land, credit, and opportunity. Rep. Shomari Figures of Alabama said the administration should be working to ensure Black farmers are never subjected to such discrimination again, not reversing policies that acknowledged that history.
    Tiffany Bellfield El-Amin, founder of the Kentucky Black Farmers Association, noted that while the label itself may have had flaws, its removal leaves Black farmers more vulnerable. She said Black producers are often left to navigate USDA programs without the same outreach given to white farmers, and that many with large operations were never disadvantaged to begin with. The USDA’s move comes in response to pressure from white farmers and conservative legal groups. A Wisconsin farmer, Adam Faust, has sued the administration, claiming he faced reverse discrimination in multiple USDA programs. Faust previously led a successful lawsuit against the Biden administration in 2021, halting a $4 billion loan forgiveness program aimed at aiding farmers of color.
    Black farmers continue to challenge federal agencies in court. The Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association recently sued the USDA for allegedly excluding them from the Discrimination Financial Assistance Program, which provided help to over 43,000 farmers who suffered discrimination before 2021.

    Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia said the administration’s actions amount to political theater. “Instead of working to create more certainty for our nation’s farmers and adopting a stable trade agenda, this administration is focused on divisive publicity stunts that will hurt our agriculture industry long-term,” he said.
    Scott’s bill builds on years of advocacy, including his efforts to expose that just 0.1% of a $26 billion USDA pandemic relief package went to Black farmers.
    As Farm Bill reauthorization talks continue in Congress, Scott said this moment must be used to embed equity into agricultural policy. “Congress has a responsibility to reverse the decades of inaction by restoring trust, creating new market opportunities, and ensuring USDA supports our Black and socially disadvantaged farmers,” Scott said.

  • Federal court strikes down Alabama map, citing racial discrimination, defiance

    Cong. Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures

    The court ruled Alabama’s map violates the Voting Rights Act, ensuring continued use of a court-ordered map enabling two Black Congressional representatives.

    By Bill Britt, Editor-in-Chief, Alabama Political Reporters

    In a sweeping rebuke of racial gerrymandering, a federal court has struck down Alabama’s 2023 congressional map, ruling that it was enacted with “intentional racial discrimination” and violates both the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. The decision clears the way for continued use of a court-ordered map that, for the first time in state history, enabled two Black lawmakers to win seats in Congress, in November 2024.
    The ruling follows a full trial in Milligan v. Allen, where judges concluded that Alabama lawmakers not only failed to correct the unlawful dilution of Black voting strength, but deliberately defied court orders to do so. The court found that the Legislature’s actions amounted to “a strategic attempt to checkmate the injunction that ordered it.”

    Historic Breakthrough in Representation
    The remedial map adopted for the 2024 cycle — drawn by a special master appointed by the court — culminated in a historic breakthrough: Alabama voters elected two Black representatives to Congress for the first time ever. U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell, D-AL-7, was re-elected, and U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures, D-AL-2, won his seat in a newly redrawn district designed to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
    “This win is a testament to the dedication and persistence of many generations of Black Alabamians who pursued political equality at great cost,” the plaintiffs said in a joint statement, emphasizing that “we know that all Alabamians will benefit from today’s victory, just as we have benefited from the work of others.”
    The case was first filed in 2021, on behalf of Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Shalela Dowdy, Letetia Jackson, Greater Birmingham Ministries and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP. The plaintiffs were represented by the Legal Defense Fund, ACLU, ACLU of Alabama, and the Birmingham-based firm Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher and Goldfarb.
    U.S Rep. Terri Sewell offered her own insight on the federal district court’s ruling, saying, “In yet another victory for fair representation, a federal court has once again ruled unequivocally that the State of Alabama’s 2023 congressional map illegally dilutes the power of African American voters. Despite the state’s years-long legal battle to undo our progress, this ruling ensures that Black voters in Alabama will continue to have not one but two congressional districts where we can elect a candidate of our choice. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is indeed alive and enforceable!”

    Rep. Shomari C. Figures, D-AL-02, said the ruling reinforces the importance of equitable representation for Black voters. “The court ruled that the congressional districts in the state of Alabama were drawn in a way that did not allow Black people to have fair representation. The U.S. Supreme Court has already agreed once with the earlier ruling in this case, and it is my hope that this ruling puts the issue to rest because fair representation is central to the foundation of our democracy.”
    Court Unmoved by Alabama’s “Defiance”
    In its 600-page opinion, the three-judge panel concluded that the 2023 map, like its 2021 predecessor, unlawfully diluted Black voting strength by confining Black voters to a single majority-Black district despite clear evidence that two opportunity districts were both necessary and achievable.
    “We cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than an intentional effort to dilute Black Alabamians’ voting strength and evade the unambiguous requirements of court orders standing in the way,” the judges wrote. They found that Alabama’s Black population is “sufficiently numerous and geographically compact” to form two such districts, and that voting in the state remains “intensely racially polarized.”
    The court cited trial testimony in which the state’s own legal team admitted that the Legislature “may have been hoping” to force another Supreme Court review by refusing to comply. The judges rejected this maneuver, writing that “if this record is insufficient to rebut the strong presumption of legislative good faith, then we doubt that the presumption is ever rebuttable.”
    A Legacy of Resistance — and a New Chapter
    Deuel Ross, deputy director of litigation at LDF, stated that Alabama’s “unprecedented defiance of the Supreme Court and the lower court orders harkens back to the darkest days of American history.” He called the ruling “a reaffirmation of the rule of law and the importance of protecting the fundamental right to vote.”
    Laurel Hattix, senior attorney at the ACLU of Alabama, said the decision was “an overdue acknowledgment of Alabama lawmakers’ persistent attempts to shut out Black voters from the electoral process,” and added, “for decades, Black Alabamians have organized and fought for not just their voting rights, but the voting rights of all Americans.”
    Davin Rosborough, deputy director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, underscored the broader implications: “The court has once again recognized that in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act, it is essential that Alabama’s congressional map have two opportunity districts for Black voters.”
    Preclearance Request and What Comes Next
    The court permanently enjoined Secretary of State Wes Allen from using the invalidated 2023 map in future elections and ordered continued use of the remedial map through the remainder of the decade. A status conference is scheduled for May 28, 2025, to determine next steps.
    The plaintiffs have also requested that Alabama be placed back under federal “preclearance,” a provision of the Voting Rights Act that would require the state to obtain federal approval before implementing any new congressional map — a safeguard typically reserved for jurisdictions with a history of repeated violations.
    In its concluding remarks, the court warned that Alabama’s actions “fly in the face” of its own claim that it no longer needs federal oversight, writing: “We are troubled by the State’s view that even if we enter judgment for the Plaintiffs after a full trial, the State remains free to make the same checkmate move yet again — and again, and again, and again.”
    As the case now enters a new phase, the ruling stands as one of the most forceful judicial rebukes of racial discrimination in redistricting in recent memory — and a landmark moment for the future of representation in Alabama.