Steph Tai, Is Racism Arbitrary and Capricious? A Look at Agency Grant, Loan, and Licensing Decisions, 45 Admin. & Reg. L. News 6 (2020).
Abstract
Administrative law treats agency actions like the federal (and state) distribution of grants, loans, and licenses as informal adjudications: a sort of "catch all" category implied by the terms of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and a category for which there are fewer procedural requirements than for other categories of agency actions. For decades, despite its promise that "no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or
national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity of an applicant or recipient receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Agriculture,"... the Department of Agriculture and the county commissioners discriminated against African American farmers when they denied, delayed or otherwise frustrated the applications of those
farmers for farm loans and other credit and benefit programs. [...]recent studies have documented racial
disparities in the federal buyout of flood-prone homes. [...]the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that while an individual grant determination was reviewable under the arbitrary and capricious standard, review of the agency's decision was limited to whether the agency's decision in that case was "was based on a
consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment."
