The Trump administration is right to challenge an Evanston, Illinois, reparations scheme that has distributed more than $5 million exclusively to qualifying Black residents. The Justice Department argues that the program replaces individual assessment with racial eligibility, violating federal civil-rights protections.
The department moved this week to intervene in a 2024 lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch on behalf of White plaintiffs. Its filing argues that Evanston’s payments violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Fair Housing Act.
“There are sound ways for a city to remedy past discrimination or direct resources to its most vulnerable citizens and neighborhoods,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Simply handing out money based on race, however, is not the answer.”
Evanston launched the nation’s first municipal reparations program in 2021. The city has identified approximately 600 Black residents who lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969, or who descended from residents living there during that period, as eligible for payments.
Recipients initially received $25,000 for mortgages, home improvements and other housing costs. Evanston later amended the program to permit unrestricted cash payments. Funding comes from a 3% tax on recreational marijuana sales.
City officials say discriminatory zoning, mortgage and insurance practices historically restricted Black residents to certain neighborhoods, limited homeownership and contributed to present-day disparities. They describe the program as a remedy for specific local policies rather than compensation for slavery generally.
The Justice Department and Judicial Watch dispute the legality of using race as the decisive qualification. Their challenge does not deny that discrimination occurred. Instead, it contends that governments cannot remedy historical discrimination by distributing public benefits according to race without satisfying strict constitutional requirements and establishing a sufficiently direct connection between specific victims and government misconduct.
That distinction matters. Assistance can be directed toward low-income households, victims of documented discrimination or neighborhoods harmed by identifiable policies without presuming that every eligible person suffered the same injury because of race.
Supporters of reparations have denounced the federal intervention. Robin Rue Simmons, a former Evanston City Council member who helped establish the program, called it an effort to intimidate communities considering similar initiatives.
The case could influence reparations proposals under consideration in Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Detroit, Kansas City and elsewhere. Evanston expects to distribute more than $11 million over the next decade.
By intervening, the Trump administration is defending the principle that civil-rights law protects individuals of every race. Historical wrongs may warrant honest examination and lawful remedies, but absurd claims about inherited harm should not become a blank check for governments to allocate taxpayer-supported benefits solely by racial classification.
