MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A FEDERAL AGENCY, HAS DONE JUST WHAT ITS NAME INDICATES. IT HELPS MINORITY OWNED BUSINESSES WITH EVERYTHING FROM ACCESSING CAPITAL TO COMPETING FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. BUT NOW A FEDERAL JUDGE IN TEXAS SAYS IT’S VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION BY PROVIDING SERVICES BASED ON RACE. IT’S JUST ONE OF SEVERAL RECENT LAWSUITS TAKING AIM AT PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO HELP MINORITIES. THERE’S A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE SMITHSONIAN MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN LATINO FOR, QUOTE, PRO-LATINO DISCRIMINATION IN ITS INTERNSHIP. AND THERE’S A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FEARLESS FUND, WHICH PROVIDES GRANTS TO BUSINESSES OWNED BY BLACK WOMEN. ALPHONSO DAVID IS ONE OF THE LAWYERS WORKING WITH THE FEARLESS FUND. HE’S ALSO THE HEAD OF THE GLOBAL BLACK ECONOMIC FORUM. ALPHONSO DAVID, NICE TO HAVE YOU WITH ME. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. SO LET’S BEGIN BY TALKING ABOUT THE MBDA. THE MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY. TAKE US BACK IN HISTORY. WHY DID IT START? SO LET’S GO BACK TO THE 1960S. THERE WAS A STATUTE THAT WAS PASSED BY CONGRESS AND SIGNED BY RICHARD NIXON TO ESSENTIALLY ADDRESS DISPARITIES IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING THAT MINORITIES WERE CONFRONTING MINORITY WERE SEEKING CONTRACTS WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES, AND THEY WERE BEING DENIED IN LARGE PART BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE. SO FROM WHAT THIS JUDGE HAS DONE NOW IN TEXAS, IN ROLLING IT BACK, IS HE ESSENTIALLY SAYING, HEY, LISTEN, IT IS NOW AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD. IT’S NOT NECESSARY ANYMORE. OSTENSIBLY, THAT’S THE EFFECT OF THIS RULING. SO A TEXAS COURT JUDGE ISSUED THIS RULING AND SAID, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN 93% OF THE BIDS IN FEDERAL CONTRACTING, MINORITIES ARE BEING DENIED OPPORTUNITIES, 93%. AND YET THE CONTRACTS OR THIS, THIS STATUTE THAT EMPOWERS THIS FEDERAL AGENCY TO ADDRESS THE DISPARITIES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. SO THE JUDGE ACKNOWLEDGES THE PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU CAN’T DENY IT. AND YET HE TAKES AWAY THE REMEDY THAT WAS CREATED BY CONGRESS AND SIGNED BY NIXON TO ADDRESS THE DISPARITY. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE MANY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT ALSO HAVE A MISSION OF TRYING TO SUPPORT HELP ELEVATE MINORITIES GENERALLY? SO THERE’S A DEEP CONCERN, I THINK, IN MANY FEDERAL AGENCIES, ALTHOUGH THIS DECISION APPLIES TO ONE FEDERAL AGENCY AND ONE STATUTE, THIS RULING IN THE RATIONALE THAT THE COURT USES, YOU COULD ARGUE, COULD APPLY TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES. AND SO THEY’RE CONCERNED WHEN THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS STRUCK DOWN, A SIMILAR THING HAPPENED, RIGHT. WE SAW RAMIFICATIONS IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE OF THE EDUCATION SPACE. AND I THINK THAT’S ONE OF THE GOALS OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE FILING THESE LAWSUITS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. THEY’RE INTENDING TO IMPLEMENT A CHILLING EFFECT ACROSS THE COUNTRY. SO IF I SUE YOU AND WHEN I WIN AND I HAVE A DECISION THAT ESSENTIALLY SAYS YOUR PROGRAM IS NO LONGER ENFORCEABLE, THEN EVERY ONE ELSE WILL ESSENTIALLY LOOK AT THEIR PROGRAMS AND THINK, CAN I STILL DO THE SAME THING, EVEN THOUGH IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR PROGRAM? YOU DON’T HAVE TO SUE ANYBODY. THEY WILL SELF CENSOR. EXACTLY. AND THAT’S THAT’S THE STRATEGY. THE STRATEGY IS TO FILE AS MANY LAWSUITS AS POSSIBLE, GET AS MANY DECISIONS AS POSSIBLE, POTENTIALLY WE HAVE A CIRCUIT COURT INFLICT. AND FOR THE NON-LAWYERS IS YOU FILE A LAWSUIT IN ONE CIRCUIT. LET’S JUST SAY THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. AND THEN YOU FILE ANOTHER LAWSUIT IN THE 11TH CIRCUIT. AND YOU GET CONFLICTING RULINGS AND THEN YOU ASK THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE ISSUE, AND THEN YOU GET A RULING THAT COMPLETELY REWRITES THE PARADIGM FOR MINORITIES. AND MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY. IS THERE A NEW APPROACH IN HOW LAWYERS GENERALLY ARE THINKING ABOUT DEALING WITH THIS? YOU KNOW, AT POST, THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DECISION IN A BUNCH OF HARVARD STUDENTS, MINORITY STUDENTS SUED OVER LEGACY ADMISSIONS, RIGHT? INSTEAD OF SAYING, NO, WE SUPPORT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. THEY’RE LIKE, WELL, YOU WANT TO REALLY SEE DISCRIMINATION. LET’S TALK ABOUT LEGACIES. THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT. AS YOU MENTIONED, I’M REPRESENTING THE FEARLESS FUND, AND ONE OF THE STRATEGIES HERE THAT THEY USE WAS TO SUE A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION THAT IS PROVIDING GRANTS TO WOMEN OF COLOR, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT ACTUALLY PROVIDES PROTECTIONS TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS. SO THINK ABOUT THIS. WHETHER IT BE THE UNITED WAY OR OR A JAPANESE AMERICAN CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION OR JEWISH ORGANIZATION WHERE THEY’RE PROVIDING GRANTS AND SERVICES ONLY TO A SPECIFIC DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP AND HAVE BEEN DOING THAT FOR DECADES. WHY IS THAT LEGAL? BUT IF A BLACK CHARITY ORGANIZATION ATTEMPTS TO HELP BLACK PEOPLE, THAT’S ILLEGAL. THEY CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. AND THAT’S WHAT WE’RE CONFRONTING IN OUR CASE, WE’LL CONTINUE TO WATCH THESE CASES. ALPHONSO DAVID,