There is of course dispute over whether these two policies are constitutional -- the administration has its reasons for pursuing them.
The fact that federal judges have issued injunctions against their continuation also says something important about them.
The fact that federal judges have issued injunctions against their continuation also says something important about them.
https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1417215295106732032
The point of including these two examples (along with several others that Balko does not discuss) was to show how "elite consensus" has shifted on how explicitly government and other entities should be taking identity into account in making policy
Balko helpfully demonstrates the existence of that novel consensus by arguing on its behalf.
You can make a case that we should be allowed to do this for some of the reasons Balko cites (and of course the Biden administration is acting on this case), but the existence of the injunctions underscores how much of a real ideological shift this is.
It was the purpose of the piece to 1.) draw attention to that shift and 2.) point out how this sea change in underlying assumptions has manifested suddenly with little explicit deliberation.
From the judge's ruling granting injunctive relief to the class of farmers not qualified for debt relief under the program: 
"In sum, the Government’s evidence falls short of demonstrating a compelling interest, as any past
discrimination is too attenuated from any present-day lingering effects to justify race-based
remedial action by Congress"
discrimination is too attenuated from any present-day lingering effects to justify race-based
remedial action by Congress"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
