Is it a denial of Equal Protection for the USDA and Epiq to afford women and Hispanic claimants access to a remedial claims framework, but bar Black male farmers solely due to race and gender?

QUESTION PRESENTED Is it a denial of Equal Protection for the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA" or "the Department") and Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. ("Epiq"), to afford women and Hispanic claimants access to a remedial claims framework, but bar ,as a threshold matter, access to this claims framework claims by Black male farmers solely due to race and gender in light of the strictest scrutiny to which racial classifications are subject and this Honorable Supreme Court's recent decisions concerning the Government's use of race in the following cases: 1. Department of Commerce, et al. v. New York, No. 18-966, June 27, 2019, 588 U.S. __ (2019) which states an agency's stated reason for acting on racial grounds may be rejected by a Court on a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior and may justify extra-record discovery. 2. Rucho v. Common Cause, et al, No. 18-422, June 27, 2019, 588 U.S.__(2019) which states in light "our country's long and persistent history of racial discrimination...as well as our Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence i has always reserved the strictest scrutiny for discrimination or classifications based on race. 3. Kisor v. Wilkie Secretary of Veterans Affairs, No. 18-15, June 26, 2019. A court must also make an independent inquiry into whether the character and context of agency action , interpretation of its rules is entitled to controlling weight if the agency's interpretation does not reflect its "fair and _ considered judgment". 4. Flowers v. Mississippi, 588 U.S. _ the argument that racial classifications, may survive when visited upon all races equally, is no more authoritative today than the case which advanced the theorem , Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). ii Ul. PARTIES The Petitioners are Estate of Earnest Lee Boyland, Estate of David Shelton, Estate of Lee Sylvester Caldwell (the "non-BFAA Petitioners" or "non-BFAA Plaintiffs"); and the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, Inc. (the "BFAA") who were in the District Court. The Respondents are United States Department of Agriculture (the "USDA") and Petitioners in the Circuit Court, Epiq Class Action & Claims, Inc. ("Epiq"), in its capacity as United States Department of Agriculture Hispanic & Women Farmers and Ranchers’ Claims Administrator; and Thomas J. Vilsack, in his official capacity as United States Department of Agriculture (sometimes referred to collectively as "Respondents") who were defendants in the District Court and Respondents in the Circuit Court. iii