In a major development in Strickland v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, the federal government has informed the court that it is renouncing race- and sex-based preferences in emergency relief programs. The move is expected to have an immediate and lasting impact on ongoing litigation, particularly MSLF’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over its use of race- and sex-based criteria in distributing disaster relief aid.
The government’s stance was very clear: “the programs at issue in this case are unconstitutional to the extent they include preferences based on race and sex. USDA has independently determined that it will no longer employ the race- and sex-based ‘socially disadvantaged’ designation to provide increased benefits based on race and sex in the programs at issue in this case… the Department of Justice will no longer defend the merits of the USDA programs at issue in this case.”
The government’s filing comes after multiple legal challenges were brought against USDA policies that prioritized certain racial and gender groups for relief. Mountain States argued that these policies unfairly discriminated against farmers and ranchers who did not qualify based on identity factors, rather than economic need or hardship—not to mention their unconstitutionality. This latest action signals a recognition of those issues, and a commitment to ensuring that federal relief programs remain neutral and accessible to all, regardless of race or sex.
Our lawsuit was filed on behalf of farmers and ranchers who were denied full access to relief solely because they did not fall within the racial or gender categories given preference. Mountain States has been fighting intensely on behalf of our clients whose constitutional rights were violated when they were excluded from full relief due to their race or sex.
“This is a landmark moment in the fight for equal protection under the law,” said Mountain States General Counsel William Trachman. “The Trump Administration’s official renunciation of race and sex preferences in emergency relief sets a precedent that government aid must be distributed based on neutral factors, not identity. We have fought hard to ensure that equality prevails, and this filing is a major first step toward ensuring that federal programs comply with constitutional principles. Thank you President Trump.” The implications of this action by the Trump Administration extend beyond the USDA and its emergency relief programs. It could serve as a precedent for future litigation involving government programs that use race and sex as criteria for determining eligibility. The shift also reflects a broader movement toward race-neutral policies in federal and state programs, aligning with recent court rulings that have struck down affirmative action in various contexts.
Mountain States has long criticized and sued the government over previous race- and sex-based relief policies arguing that such programs create division and inequality. We will be watching closely now as this major development plays out in courts. The USDA’s past policies and the ensuing legal battles have brought national attention to the issue of race- and sex-based government relief, and this recent filing may mark the beginning of a broader rollback of such policies across federal agencies.
With this filing, we anticipate that our pending lawsuits challenging race- and sex-based government policies may gain new momentum. Moving forward, agencies administering federal relief programs will likely face heightened scrutiny to ensure compliance with equal protection principles.
For now, the government’s unequivocal renunciation of race and sex preferences in emergency relief stands as a significant victory for race-neutral and sex-neutral policies in federal aid distribution. This landmark shift is necessary step towards ensuring that the Constitution is upheld and that individuals receive equal protection under the law.
