On March 10, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) publicly informed Speaker of the House Mike Johnson that it will no longer defend race- and sex-based preferences in federal agricultural relief programs. The announcement came in a letter to Congress, stating that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) emergency relief programs developed under the Biden-Harris Administration violate the Constitution. This development marks a significant victory for constitutional equality, and the rule of law.
The letter relies on the case of Strickland v. United States Department of Agriculture, a suit jointly litigated by Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) and Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF). The lawsuit challenges USDA programs that provide increased financial benefits to farmers based on race or sex—preferences that violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Now, the DOJ has formally recognized the validity of those arguments.
For years, the USDA has funneled billions of taxpayer dollars into relief programs that unfairly prioritized farmers based on race and sex, rather than need. MSLF and SLF immediately recognized this as unconstitutional discrimination and took action. Now, the DOJ has finally admitted what should have been obvious from the beginning: the government cannot pick winners and losers based on immutable characteristics.
The DOJ’s shift follows the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard (2023), which struck down race-based college admissions policies as unconstitutional. The Court held that such policies unfairly disadvantage individuals who bear no responsibility for past societal discrimination. Applying the same logic, the DOJ has concluded that USDA’s race- and sex-based preferences in emergency relief programs cannot be justified under strict constitutional scrutiny, the highest legal standard used to evaluate whether a law violates the Constitution. Under strict scrutiny, the government must prove that a law serves a compelling interest, and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal without unnecessary discrimination. In this case, the DOJ recognized that while addressing past discrimination may be a government interest, it cannot justify new discrimination that harms individuals based on race or sex. Because these USDA programs fail to meet that rigorous standard, the DOJ has conceded that they are unconstitutional.
In its letter to Congress, the DOJ explained that while the USDA’s programs were designed to address historical disparities in farming, they ultimately violate the fundamental constitutional principle of equality before the law. “An interest in remedying past discrimination does not justify the use of race- and sex-based preferences,” the letter states, aligning the DOJ’s position with the Supreme Court’s recent decisions limiting the use of race-based criteria in government programs.
This is a monumental moment for farmers across America who have been unfairly excluded from certain relief benefits due to immutable characteristics like race and sex. MSLF and SLF have fought tirelessly on behalf of farmers like Alan and Amy West, Bryan Baker, and Rusty Strickland, who seek an equal playing field in an industry already fraught with challenges. The DOJ’s bold decision to abandon its defense of these discriminatory programs validates the arguments MSLF has championed from the start: equal protection under the law must apply to all Americans.
“This is a good day for equality under the law in America,” said MSLF general counsel, William Trachman. “The Trump Administration has clearly embraced the constitutional principles behind the promise of our country, and we hope that the days of discrimination coming from the federal government are now over.”
While the DOJ has withdrawn its defense of these unconstitutional provisions, MSLF and its partners remain committed to ensuring that government policies align with constitutional principles. This decision will have broad implications beyond agriculture, reinforcing a national precedent against race- and sex-based preferences in government programs.
By taking a stand against unconstitutional discrimination, the DOJ has signaled a return to foundational American values—where equality under the law reign supreme. As the Strickland case continues through the legal system, one thing is clear: the tide is turning against government programs that attempt to divide Americans rather than unite them.