Not much different than operating a monopoly, where you control the source and you are left and force to use a source that you don’t want, its defective and abusive.
https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ94/PLAW-114publ94.pdf
(b) DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES.—
(1) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
(A) while significant progress has occurred due to the establishment of the disadvantaged business enterprise program, discrimination and related barriers continue to
pose significant obstacles for minority- and women-owned businesses seeking to do business in federally assisted surface transportation markets across the United States: (B) the continuing barriers described in subparagraph(A) merit the continuation of the disadvantaged business
enterprise program; (C) Congress has received and reviewed testimony and
documentation of race and gender discrimination from numerous sources, including congressional hearings and roundtables, scientific reports, reports issued by public and private agencies, news stories, reports of discrimination by organizations and individuals, and discrimination lawsuits, which show that race- and gender-neutral efforts alone are insufficient to address the problem; (D) the testimony and documentation described in subparagraph (C) demonstrate that discrimination across the United States poses a barrier to full and fair participation in surface transportation-related businesses of women business owners and minority business owners and has impacted firm development and many aspects of surface
transportation-related business in the public and private markets; and (E) the testimony and documentation described in subparagraph (C) provide a strong basis that there is a
compelling need for the continuation of the disadvantaged business enterprise program to address race and gender discrimination in surface transportation-related business.
(2) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection, the following definitions apply:
(A) SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘small business concern’’ means a small business concern (as the term
is used in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632)). (ii) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘small business concern’’ does not include any concern or group of concerns controlled by the same socially and economically disadvantaged individual or individuals that have average annual gross receipts during the preceding 3 fiscal years in excess of $23,980,000, as adjusted annually
by the Secretary for inflation. (B) SOCIALLY AND ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED INDIVIDUALS.—The term ‘‘socially and economically disadvantaged individuals’’ has the meaning given the term
in section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) and relevant subcontracting regulations issued pursuant to that Act, except that women shall be presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged individuals for purposes of this subsection. (3) AMOUNTS FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS.—Except to the extent that the Secretary determines otherwise, not less than 10 percent of the amounts made available for any program under titles I, II, III, and VI of this Act and section 403 of title 23, United States Code, shall be expended through
small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.
** (Disclaimer: This video content is intended for educational and informational purposes only) **
A Federal District Court dismissed petitioner's complaint in a civil action for failure to state a claim upon which relief might be granted. Rule 12(b)(6) – https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/41 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/371/178/ The Court of Appeals treated the first notice of appeal as premature, because of the then pending motion to vacate, and it dismissed that appeal. It held that the second notice of appeal was ineffective to review the judgment of dismissal, because it failed to specify that the appeal was from that judgment, and it affirmed denial of petitioner's motions, on the ground that there was nothing in the record to support a finding that the District Court had abused its discretion in refusing to allow amendment of the complaint. The Court of Appeals also erred in affirming the District Court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal in order to allow amendment of the complaint, since it appears from the record that the amendment would have done no more than state an alternative theory of recovery, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) declares that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires," and denial of the motion without any apparent justifying reason was an abuse of discretion. P. 182.
GET’EM !