Florida
Federal Appeals Court Rules on Discrimination Claims by Black Empowerment Group in Pinellas
The Pinellas County Commission violated the First Amendment rights of a Black-empowerment group by withholding COVID-response grants for political and racial reasons, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. A unanimous opinion by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of…
Last updated:
Key points
- The Eleventh Circuit ruled that Pinellas County discriminated against APEDF by denying grants.
- APEDF provides community services in South St. Petersburg and operates a radio station.
- The case highlights disparities in grant funding based on race and political affiliations.
NewsWK — A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has determined that the Pinellas County Commission infringed on the First Amendment rights of the African People’s Education and Defense Fund (APEDF) by denying COVID-response grants based on political and racial factors.
The court’s unanimous decision overturns a prior ruling by a trial judge, affirming that the APEDF has made a credible claim of racial discrimination when its previously awarded grant for radio equipment was revoked along with a subsequent denial of additional funding requests. Judge Kevin Newsom, who delivered the opinion for the three-judge panel, noted that the organization could plausibly demonstrate intentional discrimination based on race.
APEDF operates in South St. Petersburg, providing various community services, including a gym, a licensed kitchen, and free HIV testing, from its center known as Uhuru House. It also runs a radio station, Black Power 96. The organization sought grants under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) and was recommended for funding by the Pinellas Community Foundation. However, the request was met with opposition from County Commissioner Chris Latvala, who raised allegations of anti-Semitism and claimed the group was linked to the African People’s Socialist Party, charges the organization denies.
The court found that similar white-led organizations were not subjected to the same scrutiny, pointing to a disparity in how funding was allocated. While the court dismissed the organization’s due-process claim—stating that the government is not obligated to provide any grants—it emphasized that the essence of the First Amendment claim lies in the assertion that the county manipulated the grant process to stifle ideas associated with the Uhuru Movement.
Judge Newsom explained, “Though the government can deny funding to applicants for many reasons, it may not deny even a discretionary benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests—especially, his interest in freedom of speech.” The case is now set to return to the trial court for further proceedings.
This article was produced with the assistance of AI and reviewed by our editorial team.
Based on reporting by Michael Moline originally published by Florida Phoenix. Read the original story.
