Case Status: Active
Challenging the Unconstitutional Use of Race and Gender Preferences in Federal Agricultural Aid Programs
CIR’s Petition for Rulemaking Repeal to the USDA
The Administrative Procedure Act invites any interested person to petition a federal agency to issue, amend, or repeal a regulation. Invoking that law, CIR filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary asking her to repeal several current regulations that provide illegal preferences in the award of agricultural aid based on applicants’ race, ethnicity, and gender. Many of the USDA’s current regulations automatically treat all members of preferred racial, ethnic, and gender groups as uniformly disadvantaged, without examining their individual experiences—as required by law.
These regulations violate the federal laws that create the aid programs and the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or gender. The USDA’s approach discriminates against individuals by categorizing them primarily on membership in those broad categories rather than on their personal experiences. The petition calls for the USDA to adopt an individualized approach to evaluating those who are socially disadvantaged, in line with both constitutional principles and the original purpose of the relevant laws.
The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 and other statutes were enacted to remedy specific instances of discrimination in the agricultural sector, not to distribute aid based solely on race or gender identity. This misapplication of the law has resulted in a distorted system that benefits many individuals who may not have faced any discrimination while excluding or burdening others who have.
Background: What Is the USDA’s Socially Disadvantaged Group (SDG) Classification?
The USDA administers various programs to support American farmers and ranchers, including assistance for those who are part of “socially disadvantaged groups” (SDGs). Under the USDA’s current regulations, those who are “socially disadvantaged” presumptively include all women and all members of certain racial and ethnic groups. Specifically, these include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, and women. Over time, the USDA’s offensive racial presumption became even more inflexible and indefensible. Any individual within these groups is treated as automatically disadvantaged, without assessing their personal experience of discrimination or hardship.
Why This Case Matters:
If the USDA adopts CIR’s petition, this could mark a transformative change in how federal agricultural programs are administered. Favorable action would:
- Provide clarity on how federal resources should be distributed based on individual disadvantage rather than race, ethnicity, or gender.
- Reaffirm constitutional limits on the use of race and gender classifications by federal agencies.
- Set a precedent for future policy reforms that prioritize equal treatment under the law while addressing the real needs of disadvantaged individuals.
Key Legal Issues:
- Race and Gender Classifications Are Presumptively Unconstitutional: The USDA’s reliance on race and gender as automatic proxies for disadvantage violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Such racial classifications cannot pass the strict scrutiny standard required by the Constitution because they are over-inclusive and under-inclusive of those who are disadvantaged.
- Misinterpretation of Statutory Purpose: The USDA’s use of race and gender to determine eligibility for aid is inconsistent with the original meaning of the statutes that created the assistance programs. These laws seek to end or remedy specific instances of discrimination in agriculture, not provide blanket benefits based on race, ethnicity, or gender identity.
- Expansion of Federal Power: The USDA has exceeded its authority by adopting broad racial and gender-based classifications that were never authorized by Congress. This overreach also violates the constitutional limits on federal power under the Constitution’s Spending Clause.