Tag: Economic Injury Disaster Loans

Collected resources on record restrictions for small business relief

*NEW POST (Jan. 21, 2021): Applying for SBA COVID-19 relief with a criminal record in 2021 On this page, we collected a variety of materials on the restrictions related to arrest or conviction imposed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) on small business owners seeking relief under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program during 2020. Included are proposed reform legislation, lawsuits filed, academic studies, letters from legislators and major organizations, articles by us and by others, and official documents related to this issue. (For more current information, see: Applying for SBA COVID-19 relief with a criminal record in 2021.) After the first COVID-19 relief bill in March 2020, the CARES Act, the SBA imposed broad criminal history restrictions on applicants. Following the introduction of a bipartisan Senate bill, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin agreed on June 10, 2020, to revise the PPP restrictions.  On June 12, 2020, SBA issued new regulations and applications forms to ease some of the barriers in the PPP.  On June 24, 2020, the SBA further relaxed its criminal history barriers for PPP assistance, this time in a far more significant fashion, and in a manner that makes the business owners who are suing the SBA now eligible to apply.  The new regulation and application form came less a week before the June 30, 2020 deadline to apply for relief. Meanwhile, two lawsuits were filed against the SBA in federal court in Maryland, asserting that the SBA’s criminal history restrictions are beyond the agency’s authority, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to the text of the CARES Act; the second lawsuit also asserts that the restrictions fall hardest on minority businesses due to the impact of over-criminalization on communities of color.  On June 29, 2020, a federal judge ruled that the SBA’s criminal history restrictions on PPP, except for the June 24 policy change, were likely unlawful.  The court extended the deadline to apply, but only for the small business owners who had sued. In a dramatic finale, Congress extended the PPP application deadline to August 8, 2020 for everyone.  This extension, signed into law on July 4, gave business owners made eligible under the June 24, 2020 policy a meaningful opportunity to learn about their eligibility and complete the application process. Proposed Reform Legislation Paycheck Protection Program Second Chance Act Fair Chance for Small Business Relief Act HEROES Act Lawsuits MoveCorp, et al. v. U.S. Small Business Administration, et al., 1:20-cv-01739 (D.D.C., filed June 25, 2020) Carmen’s Corner Store, et al. v. U.S. Small Business Administration, et al., 1:20-cv-01736 (D. Md., filed June 10, 2020) Defy Ventures, Inc., et al. v. U.S. Small Business Administration, et al., 1:20-cv-01838 (D. Md., filed June 16, 2020) Academic Studies Criminal Disqualifications in the Paycheck Protection Program, University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (June 2020) Letters from Legislators Letter to the head of the SBA from Rep. Dina Titus and 15 other Members of Congress (May 19) Letter to heads of the U.S. Treasury and SBA from Senator Rob Portman and Senator Ben Cardin, Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business Committee (April 30) Letter to PA Congressional Delegation from 21 PA legislators (April 24) Letter to Congressional Leadership from Rep. Joe Kennedy III and Rep. Joyce Beatty (April 17) Letters to Congressional Leadership and heads of the U.S. Treasury and SBA from Senator Jeffrey A. Merkley (April 8) Letter to heads of the U.S. Treasury and SBA from Rep. Cedric L. Richmond and 10 other Members of Congress (April 6) Letters from Major Organizations Comment on PPP Interim Final Rule by the Collateral Consequences Resource Center and 25 other organizations (May 15) Comment on PPP Interim Final Rule by the Institute for Justice Clinic on Entrepreneurship (May 15) Comment on PPP Interim Final Rule by the National Center for Transgender Equality (May 15) Comment on PPP Interim Final Rule by Citizens for Juvenile Justice and 37 other organizations (May 15) Letter to Congressional leadership from the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (May 7) Comment on PPP Interim Final Rule by Americans for Prosperity Foundation (April 23) Letter to Senator Marco Rubio from leaders of nine evangelical and Catholic organizations (April 20) Letter to Congressional Leadership and heads of the U.S. Treasury and SBA from nine conservative organizations (April 20) and Letter to the President (April 21) Letter to Senate Leader Mitch McConnell from national and Kentucky-based groups (April 20) Joint Statement by the Council of State Governments Justice Center and 12 other groups (April 16) Letter to head of SBA from Florida Rights Restoration Coalition (April 10) Letter to heads of the U.S. Treasury and SBA from bipartisan group of civil rights, advocacy, and business organizations, including CCRC (April 17) and Letter to Congress (April 10; updated April 17) CCRC Articles SBA throws in the towel and Congress extends the PPP deadline (July 7) SBA rolls back many criminal history barriers just before deadline (June 24) SBA eases some criminal history barriers and faces litigation (June 16) Senate bill would deliver relief to small biz owners with a record (June 5) New efforts to channel federal relief to small business owners with a record (May 20) Is SBA denying disaster relief based only on an arrest? (May 6) Mnuchin defends record restrictions for SBA stimulus loans (April 22) Second Chance Small Businesses Deserve Another Chance (April 21) SBA has no excuse for excluding people with a record from stimulus relief (April 20) At a Glance: Barriers to the Paycheck Protection Program (‘PPP’) Based on Arrest or Conviction (April 16) SBA’s bumpy guidance on criminal history requirements for stimulus loans (April 3) Applying for an SBA loan with a criminal record (March 27) Official Documents 15 U.S.C. §§ 636(a), (b) CARES Act Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act S.4116 (“A bill to extend the authority for commitments for the paycheck protection program….”) Paycheck Protection Program Additional Revision to the First Interim Final Rule Revisions to First Interim Final Rule Interim Final Rule Application Form (rev. June 24) Application Form (rev. June 12) FAQs 13 CFR 120.110 13 CFR 120.150 Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) 50 10 5(K) SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan program P.L. 90-448, 1106(e), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Act of 1968 13 CFR 123.301 13 CFR 123.101 13 CFR 123.6 SOP 50 30 9 Other Articles Denied U.S. economic relief because of criminal record, Baltimore electrician challenged the system, Baltimore Sun (July 6) Court: Hagerstown shop owner, ex-con, can seek PPP loan, Daily Record (July 6) PPP Loans: What You Need to Know About the Latest Changes, WSJ (July 6) Local business owner sees PPP change just in time for $200,000 loan, WCPO (July 3) Biz Owners Barred For Criminal Past Win PPP Extension, Law 360 (June 30) Court Rules SBA PPP Loan Application Barring Eligibility from Business Owners with Criminal Records Unlawful, ACLU (June 30) NCLA Court Win Keeps SBA from Rewriting CARES Act to Exclude Small Biz Owners on Probation (June 30) Court rules that former SBA rules barring business owners with criminal records from aid were illegal, extends deadline for our client, Public Interest Law Center (June 29) New Guidance From SBA Eliminates Some Eligibility Requirements for Criminal Records, NCSL (June 29) Small Business Owners with Criminal Records Sue Over Pandemic Aid Restrictions, Route 50 (June 17) Formerly Incarcerated Businessowners Sue SBA For Denying Them COVID-19 Emergency Loans, Appeal (June 17) Trump Administration Sued for ‘Destructive’ Denial of Covid-19 Relief Loans to Small Business Owners With Criminal Records, Common Dreams (June 17) Entrepreneurs with criminal records illegally refused Cares Act relief, lawsuit says, Washington Post (June 17) SBA Sued Over Rule Barring Convicted Felons From PPP Loans, WSJ (June 16) Civil rights groups sue Small Business Administration over PPP loans, CBS (June 16) ACLU sues to stop SBA from denying PPP loans to people with criminal records, Yahoo (June 16) In face of lawsuit, SBA broadens loan program to more recent felons, Newsday (June 15) U.S. eases criminal record provision in coronavirus business loan program, AP (June 12) Criminal record shouldn’t bar small businesses from COVID-19 payroll loans, suit says, McClatchy (June 12) The Coronavirus Stimulus Discourages Aid to Small Business Owners With a Criminal Record, Intercept (June 8) Bipartisan Bill Seeks PPP Access Despite Criminal Records, Law360 (June 5) Support the Paycheck Protection Program Second Chance Act, S. 3865, FreedomWorks (June 5) Justice Action Network Applauds Bipartisan Senate Coalition Introducing “Paycheck Protection Program Second Chance Act”, Justice Action Network (June 4) Senators Stand Up for Entrepreneurs with Criminal Record During Pandemic, Prison Fellowship CSG Justice Center Backs Bill Weakening Barriers on Small Business Owners, CSG Justice Center (June 4) Don’t Bar Ex-Offenders From Coronavirus Aid Funds, New York Times (June 2) SBA Excludes Small Business Owners With Criminal Records From Relief Loans, Forbes (May 27) Number of working black business owners falls 40%, far more than other groups amid coronavirus, Washington Post (May 25) Applicants with troubled pasts can’t qualify for PPP loans. Rubio hopes to change that, Miami Herald (May 21) Federal agency denies COVID-19 loans for applicants’ past mistakes, News Channel 5 Nashville (May 20) We Have Criminal Records. Don’t Shut Us Out of the Recovery, Barron’s (May 18) Paycheck Protection Program shouldn’t exclude ex-cons who have paid their debt to society, Dallas Morning News (May 13) Does an Arrest Record Disqualify Business Owners From COVID-19 Disaster Relief? Crime Report (May 8) Some Business Owners Excluded From PPP Due To Criminal History, Newsy (May 7) Congress should include second chances in coronavirus relief bill, The Hill (May 7) Emergency Loan Program Excludes Ex-Cons Trying to Make Good, Corvallis Advocate (May 7) Is the SBA Denying Disaster Loans to Anyone Arrested in the Last 10 Years? A Leaked Powerpoint Suggests It Is, Entrepreneur (May 6) Local business owner says PPP application holds his past against him, WCPO (May 4) Nonprofit Advocates for Business Owners with Criminal Records, Biz New Orleans (May 4) Have A Criminal Record? COVID-19 Relief May Be Out Of Reach, Law 360 (May 3) Emergency Coronavirus Loans Will Cripple Some Small Businesses, National Interest (May 1) Sen. Portman says small business owners with criminal records should be allowed to apply for PPP, News 5 Cleveland (April 30) How the SBA is Stepping on Small Business Owners, R Street (April 30) Small businesses just got a $300B bailout but many who need a second chance won’t get a dime, The Star-Ledger/NJ.com (April 28) A criminal record shouldn’t be a barrier to the Paycheck Protection Program, Pennsylvania Capital-Star (April 27) By restricting PPP based on criminal record, many non-profits will suffer, Philadelphia Inquirer (April 27) Paycheck Protection Program Leaves Behind Formerly Incarcerated Business Owners, JJIE (April 24) Rep. Ayanna Pressley Calls For Racial Data On Coronavirus Business Loans, WGBH (April 24) Christian leaders demand access to COVID-19 relief loans for business owners with criminal record, The Christian Post (April 23) Former felons should not be pushed out of loans under CARES Act, USA Today (April 23) Some ex-felons excluded from small business relief in spite of Trump’s criminal justice reform platform, CNN (April 22) Criminal records shut small biz owners out of aid program, AP (April 21) A criminal past means no Paycheck Protection Program loan, CBS (April 21) Don’t deny pandemic relief loans to second-chance entrepreneurs, AEI (April 21) Formerly Incarcerated Americans Were Excluded From Federal COVID-19 Relief, The Appeal (April 20) Advocates lament exclusion of those with criminal records from business loan program, Catholic Sentinel (April 20) Paycheck Protection Program coronavirus relief: ‘They say it’s for everyone, but it’s really not’, Cincinnati.com (April 19) If You’re A Business Owner On Probation, Don’t Bother To Apply For COVID-19 Relief Loans, KCUR (April 16) Don’t Let Red Tape Limit Second Chances During Pandemic, CSG Justice Center (April 14) Not every small business owner can qualify for SBA Paycheck Protection loans, Kelo (April 13) Trump Administration Tells Some Business Owners “Do Not Apply” for Coronavirus Loans, The Marshall Project (April 8) Read more

New efforts to channel federal relief to small business owners with a record

*UPDATE (7/7/20):  “SBA throws in the towel and Congress extends the PPP deadline” After Congress authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in funds for small business relief during COVID-19, the Small Business Administration (SBA) imposed restrictions on applicants with an arrest or conviction history.  These barriers, neither required nor contemplated by Congress, impede access to the two major relief programs for small businesses, nonprofits, and independent contractors during the COVID-19 crisis.  The two programs are the newly created Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the ramped-up Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program. Three developments within the past week signal major pushback against or the possible reversal of at least some of these burdensome restrictions, which unfairly deny relief to worthy applicants. First, at least 65 organizations submitted five public comments in opposition to the SBA’s criminal history restrictions for PPP relief.  Our organization joined 25 other groups in submitting a comment asking the SBA to rescind or modify the regulation on legal and policy grounds, citing recent court decisions that suggest the SBA may lack authority to impose record-based disqualifications at all. These comments are the most recent expression of what has become a wave of bipartisan opposition to the SBA’s exclusionary policies, and growing coverage of the issues in the press.  We have been collecting relevant documents on our small business relief resource page. Second, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin signaled in a recent conversation with key Senators that he may be open to easing restrictions on PPP applicants with felony records from the last five years. Third, the HEROES Act, passed by the House on Friday, includes provisions that would significantly constrain the SBA’s authority to deny applicants based on a record of arrest or conviction in both the PPP and EIDL programs.  If enacted into law, these provisions would mark a turning point in how federal law deals with discrimination based on criminal record. We discuss these developments in detail after the jump.  Public Comments Urge SBA To Rescind its Restrictions The SBA’s Interim Final Rule for the Paycheck Protection Program has come under scrutiny during the public comment period, which concluded on Friday.  Collectively, more than 65 organization wrote five comments in opposition to the criminal history exclusions. The Interim Final Rule makes ineligible for PPP relief any individual who owns 20% or more of the equity of a business and is presently incarcerated, on probation, on parole, or subject to charges.  Additionally, the regulation as supplemented by the PPP application form makes ineligible any owner of a business if they have in the last 5 years, for a felony: 1) been convicted; 2) pleaded guilty; 3) pleaded nolo contendere; 4) been placed on pretrial diversion; or 5) been placed on parole or probation. The first public comment, filed on behalf of a diverse bipartisan group of organizations, including our own, calls on SBA to rescind or modify its “needlessly restrictive and unfairly discriminatory” rules. The comment highlights that many people with a record, facing challenges in securing employment, have established their own small businesses and hired many employees with a record.  “Driving them out of business will result in a severe impact on employment of a population that is already disadvantaged in the workplace.”  The comment also points out the particularly adverse impact on business owners and employees of color, “arrested and convicted at disproportionately high rates due to institutional racism, ensuring that business owners of color will be disproportionately excluded from critical economic assistance.” Finally, the comment articulates how the SBA’s exclusions are contrary to the intent of Congress in enacting the CARES Act, which calls for relief on an emergency basis and includes a specific provision that “any business concern … shall be eligible” for relief if it has the requisite number of employees.  The comment argues that the SBA’s rules are not only at odds with the CARES ACT, but also “inexplicably depart from prior [SBA regulations] and are unsupported by any explanation.” The comment cites three recent federal court decisions to suggest that the SBA may lack statutory authority to impose the exclusions at issue: A federal court in Michigan found unlawful a different SBA rule that made certain categories of businesses ineligible for PPP—including banks, lobbying firms, certain private clubs, and sexually oriented businesses providing “prurient” products. See DV Diamond Club of Flint, LLC, et al. v. United States Small Business Administration, et al., No. 20-CV-10899, 2020 WL 2315880, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 11, 2020).  The court held that because Congress made PPP funds available to “all” small business that satisfy the eligibility requirements in the CARES Act with respect to number of employees, the SBA’s more restrictive eligibility rules (drawn from exclusions in preexisting SBA policies) unlawfully exceed the statute.  This reasoning would seem to apply equally to the SBA’s criminal history exclusions. Two federal bankruptcy courts, one in New Mexico and one in Texas, held that the SBA’s decision to exclude bankrupt debtors, an exclusion not in the CARES Act, was arbitrary and capricious, and in excess of statutory authority. See In re: Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, No. 18-13027 T11, 2020 WL 2096113 (Bankr. D.N.M. May 1, 2020); In re Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation, Case no. 19-20497; Adv. pro. No. 20-2006, 2020 WL 2029252 (Bankr. S.D. Tex., Apr. 25, 2020). The comment urges the SBA to immediately remove the ineligibility for persons charged with a crime: “Punishing individuals who have not been convicted of wrongdoing in a court of law is fundamentally unfair and jeopardizes the economic well-being of thousands of employers and employees.”  The group urges the SBA to rescind the 5-year ineligibility period for individuals convicted of a felony, placed on pretrial diversion/probation/parole for a felony, or currently on probation or parole.  To the extent the SBA has authority to restrict eligibility for PPP beyond the criteria in the CARES Act itself, they should be limited to felony convictions for financial fraud from the past 3 years, subject to an individualized assessment and waiver. A second comment by the Institute for Justice Clinic on Entrepreneurship illustrates the real world impacts of the SBA’s rules and policies, which may “arbitrarily wipe out” all that entrepreneurs with criminal histories have built: businesses that employ workers, create wealth, and provide goods and services to their communities.  The comment articulates the importance of entrepreneurship for those with criminal histories and describes the stories of individuals who started small businesses. A third comment by Citizens for Juvenile Justice and 37 other organizations emphasizes language in the CARES Act that directs the SBA to prioritize relief for “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,” which the comment argues includes persons with criminal records.  Excluding a class of persons simply based on involvement in the criminal justice system, or unadjudicated allegations, “is not only contrary to law, it is wrong,” and “perpetuate[s] long-standing forms of racial and ethnic discrimination.” A fourth comment by Americans for Prosperity (filed under a related regulation) argues that the SBA’s criminal history exclusion is “contrary to the text, structure, and purpose of the CARES Act,” raises due process concerns as applied to those only charged with crimes, and “is poor public policy with an overbroad sweep that harms otherwise deserving small businesses and their employees.” Finally, the National Center for Transgender Equality filed a comment asserting that the SBA’s rules are not based in the statute and should be revised to reflect only statutory eligibility requirements. Possible Administrative Change In April, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin defended the SBA restrictions, stating that the Administration would not voluntarily change them.  But on May 13, the New York Times reported that Senator Cory Booker had raised with Mnuchin the issue of regulations barring some people with records from getting PPP loans.  According to a Senate aide, Mnuchin was “receptive to easing the restrictions” on applicants with felony records from the last five years. The HEROES Act Would Constrain the SBA Even if the SBA does not amend its policies, Congress may force its hand. In April, 16 members of Congress issued letters criticizing the SBA’s criminal history exclusions, including a bipartisan letter by Senators Rob Portman and Ben Cardin, a joint letter by Reps. Joyce Beatty and Joe Kennedy III, a letter by Senator Jeffrey Merkley, and a letter by Rep. Cedric Richmond and 10 other members. This past Friday, the House enacted the HEROES Act, which includes language drawing on Reps. Joyce Beatty and Joe Kennedy III’s Fair Chance for Small Business Relief Act, which would explicitly curtail the SBA’s authority to deny PPP and EIDL relief based on criminal history. As to PPP relief, the bill would allow the SBA to deny a loan if an owner of 20 percent or more equity was convicted of felony financial fraud or deception in the previous 5 years.  However, other criminal history would not disqualify an applicant unless such an owner is currently incarcerated.  See H.R 6800, Sec. 90001(j).  This provision would significantly roll back the PPP exclusions discussed above, and analyzed in greater detail in previous postings collected on our small business relief resource page. As to EIDL relief, the HEROES Act would require that the SBA’s application forms include a statement making clear that an applicant for these disaster advances and loans is not ineligible “solely because of the applicant’s involvement in the criminal justice system.”  See H.R 6800, Sec. 90009.  Currently, it appears that the SBA is denying COVID-19-related EIDL relief to applicants who have ever been arrested for a felony or who have been arrested for a misdemeanor in the last 10 years.  We read the HEROES Act provision to prohibit the SBA from denying disaster relief to any otherwise eligible person based upon their criminal record, an even broader restriction than would apply to the PPP program. While the HEROES Act in its entirety is unlikely to become law in its current form, if these two provisions make it through the next round of negotiations in the Senate, they would dramatically expand access to critical relief for many small business owners, nonprofits, and independent contractors that the SBA has unfairly been excluding in the past.  They would mark a breakthrough in the federal government’s approach to securing fair treatment for people with a record.  While last year’s Fair Chance Act was an important step in opening doors to federal agency and contractor employment by limiting background inquiries in the early stages of hiring, this would be the first time in decades that Congress has directly prohibited record-based discrimination in a major government benefit program.  We will have more to say on that subject if and when the law is enacted with these provisions in it. Read more

Organizations call on Congress to remove record-related barriers to small business relief

A bipartisan group of civil rights, advocacy, and business organizations, including CCRC, are calling on Congress to take immediate action to remove barriers based on arrest or conviction history for small business owners seeking COVID-19 federal relief.  This is an issue we have been covering in depth in recent posts.  This call to action—available in PDF and reprinted below—is issued by the following organizations (with additional sign-ons welcome; contact us here): American Civil Liberties Union Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Collateral Consequences Resource Center College & Community Fellowship Community Legal Services of Philadelphia #cut50 Drug Policy Alliance FreedomWorks Georgia Justice Project Interfaith Action for Human Rights Jewish Council for Public Affairs Justice & Accountability Center of Louisiana Justice Action Network Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Main Street Alliance National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers National Employment Law Project Out For Justice Public Interest Law Center Reproductive Justice Inside Root & Rebound Safer Foundation Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs Women Against Registry *Note: the letter was originally issued on April 10 and was last updated on April 17. April 17, 2020 Congress Must Act Now to Remove Barriers Based on Arrest or Conviction History for Small Business Owners Seeking COVID-19 Federal Relief We oppose the restrictions based on arrest or conviction placed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) on the two small business programs authorized and funded by the CARES Act (see Appendix). With one in three Americans having some sort of record, and people with records experiencing an unemployment rate five times higher than the average rate, these restrictions will have a significant and detrimental impact on individuals, families, and communities across the United States. The restrictions will have a particularly harsh effect on minority business owners and employees who are disproportionately affected by the criminal legal system as a result of institutional discrimination. Specifically, these restrictions are: • Unnecessary and confusing: There are no statutes requiring SBA to categorically disqualify individuals from its loan programs based on an arrest or conviction record; the authority to perform a background check does not translate into authority to exclude. SBA’s Interim Final Rule and policy guidance for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) are far more exclusionary than its own existing regulations on record restrictions for small business loans, which only exclude those with active cases. The new restrictions constitute unnecessary overreach that interferes with the ability of small businesses to operate and pay their employees. The PPP interim rule and policy guidance, including its application form, are confusing and likely to have a chilling effect that will discourage many eligible applicants. The EIDL guidance and application form are similarly confusing and are likely to have the same effect. • Inconsistent with Congress’ intent: The intention of the emergency relief programs authorized by the CARES Act is to sustain small businesses that are trying to save the economy by keeping people employed. Eligibility requirements should be relaxed in these circumstances, not heightened as SBA proposes. SBA’s proposed new restrictions on eligibility for its loan programs, which already operate to exclude many people with a record, contravene the intent of the CARES Act, and are inconsistent with SBA’s more general mandate of encouraging entrepreneurship and expanding access to employment. A significant number of people with arrest or conviction history have established their own small businesses, since it is frequently difficult for them to secure employment with others. Moreover, these businesses also tend to be more willing to hire employees with a record. Driving them out of business will result in a severe impact on employment of a population that already is disadvantaged in the workplace. A large percentage of small businesses are owned by single owners or a limited number of co-owners, so that any disqualification affecting 20%+ equity owners will have a significant impact on small business owners generally. A policy that excludes from loan eligibility small businesses that are owned in whole or in part by people with arrest or conviction history is not only inconsistent with the CARES Act and the mandate of SBA’s own authorizing statutes, it also frustrates federal and state efforts to encourage the reintegration of individuals involved in the criminal legal system. • Overbroad and unfair: The PPP’s categorical bar based on certain arrest or conviction records means that there is no opportunity for an individual determination that considers factors such as rehabilitation, the circumstances of the conviction/disposition, or whether the nature of the underlying crime might adversely affect the ability to properly utilize the loan. The EIDL program restrictions go even further by asking about any involvement with the criminal legal system at any time, and potentially exclude most applicants with any arrest or conviction record from the EIDL (the SBA has not provided guidance on this). The PPP and EIDL restrictions extend to individuals that the criminal legal system has specifically determined should not be convicted of a crime, including those that participate in diversionary programs or obtain deferred adjudications – the very kinds of dispositions that are supposed to help protect people involved in the criminal legal system from harsh economic collateral consequences. The SBA’s requirement that people disclose sealed and expunged records circumvents protections in state law for these cleared records and is contrary to the intent and purpose of those laws. • Racially discriminatory: The SBA’s restrictions will have a disparate impact on minority business owners and employees, who are disproportionately affected by the criminal legal system as a result of institutional discrimination. People with a record are already subject to a myriad of disadvantages in seeking to reintegrate into society, notably in bank lending policies but also in housing, employment, licensing, education, voting, and other areas. Congress must act now to: Direct the SBA to eliminate new record restrictions introduced by the PPP interim rule and application form, and clarify the record-related eligibility policy for EIDL applicants. Direct the SBA to relax the record restrictions that are applied to Section 7(a) and 7(b) loans under existing rules and policies. Direct the SBA to ensure that the application forms for SBA financial assistance accurately reflect the eligibility requirements. As the COVID-19 crisis continues to devastate communities across this country, federal relief must be made equitably accessible to all who need it. Sincerely, American Civil Liberties Union Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Collateral Consequences Resource Center College & Community Fellowship Community Legal Services of Philadelphia #cut50 Drug Policy Alliance FreedomWorks Georgia Justice Project Interfaith Action for Human Rights Jewish Council for Public Affairs Justice & Accountability Center of Louisiana Justice Action Network Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Main Street Alliance National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers National Employment Law Project Out For Justice Public Interest Law Center Reproductive Justice Inside Root & Rebound Safer Foundation Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs Women Against Registry APPENDIX: PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS (Prepared by CCRC) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) The CARES Act authorizes the PPP, which provides small business loans under the SBA’s 7(a) loan program, with provisions for expanded eligibility, allowable uses, and forgiveness.[i] Barriers based on arrest or conviction for 7(a) loans in general: By statute: The SBA “may verify the applicant’s criminal background, or lack thereof,” prior to approval, including through an FBI background check.[ii] By regulation: “Businesses with an Associate who is incarcerated, on probation, on parole, or has been indicted for a felony or a crime of moral turpitude” are ineligible.[iii] By policy statement: SBA interprets its regulation to also make ineligible an Associate under deferred prosecution, conditional discharge, order of protection, or a sex offender registry, or currently facing any charges in any jurisdiction.[iv] SBA also states that various principals of a business “must be of good character,” which is determined through a character evaluation, requiring disclosure of any: 1) current charges; 2) arrests in the past 6 months; and 3) time the person has been convicted, pled guilty or no contest, or been placed on pretrial diversion or any form of parole or probation—other than for a minor vehicle violation. Expunged and sealed records must be disclosed, with no exceptions. A person will generally be approved if they provide documentation that they have satisfied all sentencing conditions (presumably including payment of costs and restitution) and do not have a felony conviction, misdemeanor conviction for a crime against a minor, recent misdemeanor conviction, or recent charges. Otherwise, they are subject to a fingerprint-based FBI background check and an opaque individual determination by the SBA.[v] Barriers based on arrest or conviction specific to PPP loans: By statute: The CARES Act does not specifically authorize much less require barriers based on arrest or conviction for PPP loans. To be consistent with its purposes, the CARES Act should at the least be read to say that new barriers based on arrest or conviction should not be applied to PPP assistance.[vi] By regulation: SBA Interim Final Rule (Apr. 15): “You are ineligible for a PPP loan if….iii. An owner of 20 percent or more of the equity of the applicant is incarcerated, on probation, on parole; presently subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction; or has been convicted of a felony within the last five years.” By application form: Borrower Application (Apr. 3): asks two questions; a “yes” to either is disqualifying: 1) “Is the Applicant (if an individual) or any individual owning 20% or more of the equity of the Applicant subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction, or presently incarcerated, or on probation or parole?” 2) “Within the last 5 years, for any felony, has the Applicant (if an individual) or any owner of the Applicant 1) been convicted; 2) pleaded guilty; 3) pleaded nolo contendere; 4) been placed on pretrial diversion; or 5) been placed on any form of parole or probation (including probation before judgment)?” (Note: this is far broader than the Interim Final Rule: the second question includes “any owner” and covers dispositions other than conviction.) Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) EIDL loans are authorized under the SBA’s existing 7(b) disaster loan program. The Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (Phase 1) appropriated additional funds and deemed coronavirus a disaster.[vii] Pursuant to the CARES Act, SBA is also allowing business owners in all states, D.C., and territories to apply for an EIDL advance of up to $10,000, which “will be made available within days of a successful application, and this loan advance will not have to be repaid.”[viii] Barriers based on arrest or conviction for EIDL: By statute and regulation: Individuals convicted during the past year of a felony during and in connection with a riot or civil disorder or other declared disaster are ineligible.[ix] By policy statement: The SBA policy statement provides: “It is not in the public interest…to extend financial assistance to persons who are not of good character. If any adverse information develops concerning the character or background of a disaster loan applicant or principal owner [on forms], SBA must make a determination as to the applicant’s character before a loan can be approved.”[x]  Thus, the SBA will not approve a loan “if the applicant or principal owner is presently on parole or probation following conviction of a serious criminal offense. However, [it] will consider approving an application submitted by partnerships, corporations, and LLEs, where the apparent bar to eligibility was committed independently of any official act for the business and the individual will divest all direct and indirect interest in the business.” By application form: Forms, including the COVID-19 EIDL portal, include the usual EIDL three-part question, which requires a “yes” or “no” to the entire question: “a. Are you presently subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction? b. Have you been arrested in the past six months for any criminal offense? c. For any criminal offense – other than a minor vehicle violation – have you ever been convicted, plead guilty, plead nolo contendere, been placed on pretrial diversion, or been placed on any form of parole or probation (including probation before judgment)?” Under pre-existing policy, if this question is answered “yes,” the SBA requires the applicant to provide a Form 912 with an explanation of the offense(s), and in some cases a fingerprint sample, before the SBA will make a character determination.[xi] The SBA has not provided guidance on whether applicants who answer “yes” to this question can obtain an EIDL advance, or whether they will be subject to the usual character evaluation. [i] CARES Act (H.R. 748), secs. 1102-1105; 15 U.S.C. 636(a). [ii] 15 U.S.C. 636(a)(1)(B). [iii] 13 C.F.R. § 120.110(n). An “Associate” includes officers, directors, owners of 20% or more of the equity, key employees, and other specified entities. See 13 C.F.R. § 120.10. [iv] See SBA Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 50 10 5(K)(B)(2)(III)(A)(13) (eff. April 1, 2019). [v] The good character requirement applies to every proprietor, general partner, officer, director, managing member of an LLC, owner of 20% or more of the equity, trustor, or person who runs day-to-day operations.” See id. [vi] See CARES Act (H.R. 748), sec. 1102. [vii] Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 6074), tit. 2. [viii] CARES Act (H.R. 748), sec. 1110; https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/coronavirus-relief-options/economic-injury-disaster-loan-emergency-advance. [ix] See P. L. 90 448, 1106(e), HUD Act of l968, and 13 CFR §§ 123.301, 123.101.   [x] SBA SOP 50 30 9(3.6) (effective May 31, 2018) at p. 32. [xi] Id. Read more