Whether a federal agency can defeat a plaintiff's standing by adding non-statutory factors to benefit distributions that are purportedly race neutral

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 established a debt relief program for “socially disadvantaged” farmers and ranchers. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) subsequently issued a Notice of Funds Availability defining “socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers” based on race. Carpenter was ineligible for Section 1005 debt relief because she is Caucasian. Multiple lawsuits followed, including Carpenter’s. Before Section 1005 was enjoined, at least four payments were made to recipients in New Mexico. In 2022, Congress repealed Section 1005, but did not address the payments that USDA made before the repeal. In short, Congress has never fixed the imbalance between those who received a Section 1005 payment based on their race and those who did not. Carpenter’s suit was dismissed, based on (1) Carpenter’s residence in Wyoming, not New Mexico, and (2) the government’s argument that the repeal of Section 1005 mooted Carpenter’s case. This petition thus presents the following questions: 1. Whether, when a statute treats individuals differently based on race, a federal agency can defeat a plaintiffs standing after their complaint is filed by adding non-statutory factors to benefit distributions that are purportedly race neutral. 2. Whether the voluntary cessation doctrine applies when Congress repeals a statute, but when the government does not contend that it has eradicated the effects of its previous racially discriminatory conduct. i