Justice Department Strikes Down USDA ‘Socially Disadvantaged’ Farmer Preferences as Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice has determined that U.S. Department of Agriculture programs granting preferential treatment to “socially disadvantaged” farmers based on race and sex violate the Constitution’s equal-protection guarantee, dealing a significant blow to federal diversity initiatives in agricultural policy.

The Office of Legal Counsel opinion, issued Tuesday, found that conservation-planning programs authorizing USDA to waive user fees for farmers defined as “socially disadvantaged” through race- and sex-based criteria failed to meet constitutional standards. The opinion concluded that statutory and regulatory definitions preferring certain racial groups and women over other farmers lacked a compelling or important governmental interest to justify such classifications.

“Racial discrimination is illegal, and the government cannot show preference to certain groups when awarding special benefits without a compelling reason to justify the classification,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “This Department of Justice is committed to ending illegal DEI initiatives across the federal government that violate our Constitution and laws.”

The ruling, however, upheld five other USDA programs as constitutional, determining they could be administered in a race- and sex-neutral manner.

“Our colorblind Constitution generally prohibits the federal government from distributing benefits based on race or sex,” said Joshua Craddock, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. “Where Congress has not made the required findings and where classifications sweep far beyond any legitimate purpose, the Department must conclude that such preferences are unlawful.”

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins confirmed the department would comply with the opinion, stating that discrimination based on race and sex is unconstitutional and that no program within the department’s Farm Production and Conservation mission area would operate otherwise.

“All persons served by this Department will, without question, be treated equally,” Rollins said.

The opinion builds on the Office of Legal Counsel’s December 2025 ruling concerning the Department of Education’s race-based education programs and the Solicitor General’s February 2026 letter to Congress regarding USDA’s race- and sex-based preferences.

Justice Department Sues Philadelphia Over Mask Ban Targeting Federal Officers

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the City of Philadelphia and city officials, challenging a municipal ordinance that would criminalize federal law enforcement officers wearing masks, require individual identifiers, and prohibit the use of unmarked vehicles within city limits.

The complaint names Mayor Cherelle Parker, District Attorney Lawrence Krasner, and City Solicitor Renee Garcia as defendants in the action against Philadelphia Bill No. 260060, titled “Prohibition on Law Enforcement Secreting Their Identity.”

The Justice Department argues the law represents an illegal attempt to regulate federal government operations and threatens officer safety amid what officials described as an unprecedented wave of harassment, doxing, and violence targeting federal law enforcement personnel.

“The law threatens the safety of federal officers who have faced an unprecedented wave of harassment, doxing, and even violence,” the complaint alleges. “Threatening officers with prosecution for simply protecting their identities and their families also chills the enforcement of federal law and compromises sensitive law enforcement operations.”

The bill explicitly states its intent “to define the structure of the scope of duty, as well as substantive obligations of . . . federal law enforcement operating within the jurisdiction of the City of Philadelphia.” However, the complaint notes that the Mayor and City Solicitor have openly questioned the measure’s “significant legal problems, primarily concerning the City’s authority to regulate the conduct of federal officers when carrying out their duties under federal law.”

According to the complaint, City Solicitor Garcia observed that the bill “would send an inaccurate signal to the public that the City can legally and practically enforce the Bill.” Despite these concerns, the measure is set to take effect next month absent judicial intervention.

“Today we regrettably had to sue the birthplace of this great Nation,” said Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward. “But we will not sit by while Philadelphia flagrantly violates our Constitution, seeking to criminally punish our Nation’s law enforcement heroes merely for doing their job.”

Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division said the city violated separation of powers principles by criminalizing federal operations.

“It is disappointing to see the city where our Constitution was born so egregiously violate its separation of powers by criminalizing the work that Federal officers do to keep Philadelphians safe,” Shumate said. “Philadelphia may not regulate Federal operations and its unconstitutional attempt to do so must be stopped.”

CBS Philadelphia reported that it has contacted Mayor Parker’s office, District Attorney Krasner’s office, and members of City Council and is waiting to hear back from them.

Councilmember Rue Landau mentioned in an email, “The Trump Administration is once again targeting Philadelphia because our city dared to stand up and say that masked federal agents should not be able to operate in our communities and target our vulnerable neighbors without accountability. … This lawsuit is not about public safety. It is about Donald Trump demanding that cities bow down and accept federal overreach without boundaries. Philadelphia has never been that kind of city.”

The measure was part of the “ICE Out” legislative package approved by City Council in April. Although Mayor Parker declined to sign the mask-ban bill after City Solicitor Garcia raised legal concerns, the measure became law without her signature.

Earlier this year, a federal judge blocked a similar law in California from taking effect. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice has challenged a New Jersey law that prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing masks.

Other measures included in the “ICE Out” package limit cooperation between Philadelphia police and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), restrict the collection and use of immigration-status information, and expand protections against discrimination.