San Francisco Reparations: Will Mayor Lurie Veto this Unconstitutional and Illegitimate Scheme?

The plan imposes an unsustainable financial burden on taxpayers today and in the future

After last week’s near unanimous approval by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors (our 11-member City Council) to establish a “fund” to accept and distribute so-called Reparations to qualified city recipients, will Mayor Daniel Lurie veto it?

In July 2023, San Francisco’s African American Reparations Advisory Committee unveiled a sweeping reparations plan aimed at “addressing historical injustices against Black residents.” Make no mistake, this scheme goes far beyond a mere 7-figure payout.

The 100-point Reparations proposal includes the highly publicized $5 million lump-sum payments to eligible Black adults, and adds annual income supplements to match the area median income for 250 years. It also features comprehensive Black debt forgiveness, prioritizes housing assistance, and provides targeted programs in Black education and Black health. While proponents and activists frame it as restitution for systemic harms like redlining and the War on Drugs, this plan represents an egregious overreach of government power. It violates core principles of individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, and colorblind justice enshrined in American law. It also pretends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t exist.

Not only does it flout federal and state constitutional protections against racial discrimination, it also imposes an unsustainable financial burden on taxpayers today and in the future, exacerbating social divisions rather than fostering unity. Mayor Daniel Lurie has the duty to outright reject it in favor of merit-based, race-neutral reforms.

At the federal level, the Reparations plan violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which mandates that no state shall “deny to any person the equal protection of the laws.” San Francisco’s planned race-based government actions are subject to strict scrutiny, requiring a compelling governmental interest, where the plan fails miserably. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard reaffirmed that racial classifications are by nature inherently suspect and rarely justifiable, even for “remedy” purposes.

San Francisco’s plan explicitly discriminates by limiting government benefits to Black residents based on racial identity and historical criteria, such as descent from enslaved persons or residency during “discriminatory eras.” This creates a class of beneficiaries without demonstrating that the city’s actions are the least restrictive means to achieve equity.

LINK