This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court poses an interesting question: Can the feds set up a Constitution-violating racist program, hand out money under it, and then when a lawsuit challenges it, drop the program and say the case is over?

That's the substance of a fight that has developed because of Joe Biden's American Rescue Plan Act that designated $4 billion to forgive loans to farmers but excluded white farmers.

The scheme was set up to cancel loans for non-white farmers, plus give them a cash-back bonus of 20% more than they borrowed.

About $1 million was handed out under the program before Congress replaced the racist program with a "similar plan that does not mention race," according to a report from the Washington Examiner.

A farmer who was discriminated against by the original program brought the fight to court, and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in the leftist enclave in Colorado, found the case was moot because the program was dead.

The Wyoming farmer on whose behalf the case originated, Leisl Carpenter, farms in Wyoming's Big Laramie Valley, suffered during the pandemic and should have been eligible for help, except for race, the case charges.

Now the Supreme Court has been asked to intervene.

"Carpenter was ineligible for Section 1005 debt relief because she is Caucasian," the report quoted from the petition.

And that violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the 5th Amendment.

The race basis for the forgiveness had been confirmed by the USDA's Notice of Funds Availability under the program.

The report noted, "Carpenter’s dispute was initially brought to federal court by the Mountain States Legal Foundation on behalf of her and 11 other farmers who did not qualify for the loan forgiveness plan, which 'provided up to 120% debt relief for certain ‘socially disadvantaged’ farmers and ranchers."

But before an injunction could be issued in the dispute, a Tennessee case was resolved and Congress repealed the program.

The 10th Circuit claimed, "the case couldn’t go forward because the roughly $1 million in payments went to farmers in New Mexico, and the court said geography played a role in determining Carpenter’s eligibility."

At issue is whether the lawsuit is moot, and the status of the resulting precedent that "allows the federal government to quash a lawsuit after a federal internal agency administration decision allegedly violated equal protections."

William Trachman, of Mountain States, told the Examiner, "The 10th Circuit’s rule creates a road map for invidious discrimination whenever the federal government wants to do something."

He warned Biden could issue any sort of "reparations" and "do as much as they possibly can, in secret, as fast as they can. And then pay no price."