The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel ruled on June 22, 2026, that preferences based on race and sex in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) programs violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. This ruling affects various assistance programs administered by the USDA, which have historically favored certain groups labeled as 'socially disadvantaged.' The court's decision signifies a significant shift in how federal agricultural assistance may be allocated moving forward.
The ruling specifically addressed the fee-waiver provision in 16 U.S.C. § 590c, which allowed the USDA to waive fees for certain farmers based on their race or sex. The court found that this provision discriminated against individuals based on their identity, thus violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. This decision could have widespread implications for how federal aid is distributed in the agricultural sector.
Background
The USDA administers a variety of programs aimed at supporting farmers, including loans, grants, and technical assistance. Some of these programs have historically included preferences for individuals from 'socially disadvantaged' groups, defined as those who have faced racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice. The USDA's designation of these groups has included women and certain racial minorities, but not white individuals.
The dispute arose when the USDA sought clarification on whether its programs that conferred such preferences were constitutional. The Office of Legal Counsel was tasked with reviewing the legality of these programs, particularly in light of recent Supreme Court rulings that have scrutinized race-based classifications in government programs.
The court's opinion builds on previous determinations by the USDA and the Department of Justice, which had already concluded that many of these race- and sex-based preferences were unconstitutional. The court's ruling is a culmination of ongoing legal challenges and discussions surrounding affirmative action and equal protection under the law.
The Ruling
The court ruled that the race- and sex-based preferences in the USDA's programs violate the Constitution's equal protection guarantee. The opinion stated, "The race- and sex-based preference incorporated into 16 U.S.C. § 590c’s fee-waiver provision violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection." The ruling emphasized that all citizens must be treated equally under the law, regardless of race or sex.
The opinion also noted that while some USDA programs may still be administered constitutionally, the specific preferences for 'socially disadvantaged' groups based on race and sex are unconstitutional. The court stated, "Several other statutory provisions relating to Department of Agriculture programs do not violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, either because they do not afford preferential treatment of any kind or because they are susceptible of race- and sex-neutral implementation." The ruling does not specify which judge authored the opinion.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the USDA and the millions of dollars in federal assistance allocated to farmers each year. With the court's decision, programs that previously favored certain racial and gender groups will need to be reevaluated and potentially restructured to comply with the ruling. This could lead to a more equitable distribution of federal agricultural assistance, as all farmers, regardless of race or sex, will have to be considered equally.
The decision may also set a precedent for how other federal programs that have similar preferences might be challenged in court. As the legal landscape around affirmative action and equal protection continues to evolve, this ruling could inspire further scrutiny of government programs that classify individuals based on race or sex.
What’s Next
It remains to be seen whether the USDA will appeal this ruling or seek to amend its programs to comply with the court's findings. There are no related cases currently pending that directly address this specific issue, but the ruling may prompt other organizations and agencies to review their own policies regarding race and sex-based preferences.