The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
Samuels v. Small Business Administration
Overview
Plaintiff, a Black man, alleges that the Small Business Administration (SBA) has policies that require businesses to be at least 51% owned by women to qualify for certain programs. He argues that this requirement constitutes an Equal Protection violation.
Details
Defendant filed a , arguing that Plaintiff filed the case in the wrong court, lacked to sue because he never applied for SBA programs, and failed to provide sufficient facts to support his claim that the SBA's policies violated the Equal Protection Clause.
On August 12, 2025, the court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiff leave to amend their . The court held that Plaintiff lacked standing due to not establishing any particular injury that could be traced to Defendant's alleged misconduct. Additionally, Plaintiff filed the case in the wrong court because he did not reside in the Southern District of N.Y. (district), nor did he allege that a substantial part of the events occurred in the district. Lastly, the court denied Plaintiff leave to amend because even with a liberal reading of his allegations, there was no indication that he may be able to plead a viable claim.
Court
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Status
Filed September 10, 2023 | Decided
Relevant Law
Equal Protection Clause