The Long Game to End Racial Preferences

Three Historic CIR Cases: DynaLantic, Ultima, and Revier

Strategic litigation is a powerful engine for reform, but meaningful change in the law rarely happens overnight. It takes a winning strategy, time, and the fortitude to keep going when the odds are long. Individual cases may not bring total victory—but a series of cases, thoughtfully built over years, can do so.

That is exactly what CIR has done in the fight against race-based preferences in federal contracting. Through our years of careful strategy and disciplined advocacy, arguments that once seemed novel are now reshaping the law. Today, we’re closer than ever to achieving a goal that once seemed impossible.

A Simple Principle—And a Long Fight

CIR’s vision rests on a basic constitutional rule: the government cannot distribute benefits, burdens, or opportunities based on race.

Yet for decades, the federal government has done precisely that through a little-known program in Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. This Section 8(a) regulation issued in the 1990s automatically presumes that certain racial and ethnic groups are “socially disadvantaged.” The same regulatory presumption was also incorporated into many other government programs. Accordingly, the feds give a racial preference when doling out billions of dollars in contracts, grants, loans, and more. If you have the “right” skin color, you qualify for these special advantages. If you don’t, you are shut out—or forced to jump through essentially impossible hoops to prove disadvantage.

This is not equal treatment. It is discrimination. And it is clearly unconstitutional.

CIR has spent decades challenging racial preferences, case by case. Today, our results are unmistakable: courts are curbing unlawful presumptions, agencies are rewriting rules, and the ground is shifting toward equal treatment. With our newest case seeking to eliminate the illegal Section 8(a) regulation once and for all, we’re closer than ever to victory in this long battle.

DynaLantic: Breaking Ground

Our fight against Section 8(a) began in 1995 with DynaLantic v. Department of Defense. Our client, a small simulator company, sued when the government reserved a Navy helicopter simulator contract exclusively for 8(a) firms.

The case took 17 years, including a successful appeal and a seven-year wait for related trial court rulings. But perseverance paid off. In 2012, a federal judge ruled that the 8(a) program was unconstitutional as applied to military simulation and training. The government lacked evidence to justify race-based set-asides in that industry. The judge later approved a settlement barring the government from using the racial set-aside in that industry for two years and requiring “a strong basis in evidence” before any future use.

This was a breakthrough. For the first time, a court said the government could not apply Section 8(a) in blanket fashion across industries without specific evidence of discrimination.

This principle changed the game—but the core racial presumption still remained for every other industry.

Ultima: A Nationwide Turning Point

That changed in 2023 with CIR’s landmark win in Ultima Services Corp. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Ultima is a small business providing consulting services. Owner Celeste Bennett had won multiple contracts from the Department of Agriculture to provide office services related to conservation programs. When Ultima’s contracts came up for renewal in 2018, the feds decided to set aside these service opportunities for the 8(a) program instead. Because Celeste is white, she was excluded from competing to renew the contracts. CIR filed suit on her behalf in 2020.

After three years of persistent, patient litigation, we secured a historic victory. A federal judge declared that the Section 8(a) program’s use of a race-based presumption of social disadvantage is unconstitutional because the government had not demonstrated that the presumption was narrowly tailored to remedy specific, identified discrimination. This first-of-its-kind ruling blocked the SBA’s use of the racial presumption nationwide.

This was a landmark victory, but it was not enough. The Section 8(a) regulation itself still remains on the books.

Additionally, at least 20 other federal programs rely on this same rule to determine who receives federal loans, grants, fellowships, and other benefits. For example, NASA uses it in awarding contracts. The Department of Homeland Security uses it when offering cybersecurity fellowships to college students. The Treasury Department uses it for small business investments. The list goes on. And so does CIR’s fight.

Revier: Finishing the Job

We’re now looking to finish the job with a new case aimed at killing the unconstitutional regulation for good.

For many years, challenging the Section 8(a) regulation itself was beyond the six-year statute of limitations for a rule issued in 1998. A Supreme Court ruling in 2024 in an unrelated case, however, extended the limitations period for anyone injured by a rule in the last six years—thereby opening the door for us to challenge the regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act for a new set of clients who were recently harmed by it.

Last fall, CIR teamed up with the Wisconsin Institute of Law & Liberty to file suit. We represent Matthew Schulties, an AI-focused small-business owner, and college students in Young America’s Foundation (YAF). They all face discrimination based on their race when applying for federal program support: Matthew for a small-business investment program through the Treasury Department, the YAF students for a Department of Homeland Security cybersecurity fellowship.

Our lawsuit has already prompted action from federal officials. As of this writing, the Trump administration has asked for additional time to respond as to whether it will defend the regulation. That alone speaks volumes. We hope the feds choose to do the right thing and agree to kill the Section 8(a) racial presumption once and for all.

Why the Long Game Matters

These three cases tell a bigger story. When CIR began this fight, our arguments were seen as novel—and even unwelcome in some circles. But we never gave up. Instead, we invested years in building the factual records, refining our legal theories, and standing with clients willing to challenge powerful interests.

Today, we’re closer than ever to achieving a truly historic result: a federal government that treats every citizen as an individual, not as a member of any racial category. And we will persevere until color-blind justice prevails.