The U.S. Department of Justice asked a federal judge Tuesday to halt a municipal reparations program in Evanston, Illinois, arguing that the initiative violates constitutional protections by distributing taxpayer-funded benefits based solely on race rather than demonstrated individual harm.
The DOJ joined an existing lawsuit challenging the program, which has already distributed over $7 million in $25,000 payments to hundreds of recipients since its launch in the fifth year. The federal filing describes the program as "racially discriminatory" because it allocates different benefits on the basis of race.
The Program's Structure
Evanston's initiative, the first and only of its kind in the United States, set aside $20 million for Black residents and their direct descendants who lived in the city between 1919 and 1969 and suffered housing discrimination because of city ordinances, policies or practices. Residents of any race who experienced discrimination due to the city's policies or practices after 1969 also qualified. The city funds the program through revenue from a local tax on legal marijuana sales. Recipients can use the $25,000 for home repairs, down payments on property, and interest or late penalties on property in the city.
Approximately 14% of the city's roughly 76,000 residents are Black, according to the U.S. Census, with 11% identifying as more than one race. A majority of the city's Black residents live in the city's Fifth and Second Wards, which are historically low-income areas, according to a 2024 study on the reparations program.
Constitutional Questions
Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, said in a statement: "There are sound ways for a city to remedy past discrimination or direct resources to its most vulnerable citizens and neighborhoods. Simply handing out money based on race, however, is not the answer."
Michael Bekesha, one of the attorneys who initially sued the City of Evanston on behalf of six plaintiffs in the second year, said applicants were not required to demonstrate that they were specifically harmed by the City of Evanston, leaving race as the only criteria. He said his clients would all be eligible for the program if they were Black.
Bekesha distinguished Evanston's program from previous lawful reparations efforts, pointing to the program that compensated Japanese people after the U.S. government imprisoned over 100,000 people in internment camps during World War II, and to the people in Chicago who were paid after being tortured by the city's police department between the 1970s and the early 1990s. Bekesha said, "Reparations programs aren't new, but they've always been lawful, they've always been connected to specific harms, specific injuries suffered by specific individuals. And here in Evanston, there is no connection between the individuals receiving the money and any action taken by the city of Evanston at any point."
Broader Context
Robin Rue Simmons, who pioneered the program in Evanston and now leads the committee that presides over the funds, called the lawsuit and the federal government's support a "fear tactic" aimed at dissuading other governments from pursuing similar programs. She said redlining policies across the city between 1919 and 1969 harmed Black communities for generations, mirroring a prevalent practice nationwide wherein banks and property owners would not sell or rent to Black families in areas with more wealth. She said those policies often limited access to high-paying jobs, healthcare and education. Simmons said, "Evanston has set a new precedent. It has shown that racial reparations are possible."
The reparations issue has been a hot-button issue across the country since the abolition of slavery in 1865, and it became especially polarizing in recent years after momentum grew for similar programs in the wake of George Floyd's death in police custody in the sixth year. At least five states, including California, New York and Maryland, and more than a dozen cities, including Boston, Detroit and Philadelphia, have created task forces or commissions to study slavery reparations, but none have gone as far as Evanston to actually distribute resources.
The Trump administration's move to halt the program is in line with a broader conservative rejection of race-based reparations and is a shift from former President Joe Biden's broad support of a congressional inquiry into ways to address the government's long history of racial subjugation. It also differs from the position of the United Nations, which recently adopted a resolution urging countries to implement reparations for the trafficking of Africans into slavery around the world. The U.S. was one of three countries that rejected the measure, with the United Kingdom and all 27 European Union countries abstaining.
Why This Matters:
The federal challenge to Evanston's program establishes a critical legal precedent for how municipalities can address historical discrimination while adhering to constitutional equal protection principles. The outcome will determine whether local governments can implement race-based benefit programs funded by taxpayer revenue, or whether remedial initiatives must demonstrate specific individual harm regardless of cost or administrative complexity. With over $7 million already distributed and more than a dozen cities exploring similar programs, the case tests the boundaries between targeted remediation and broad categorical preferences. The requirement to connect benefits to documented individual injury—rather than group membership—reflects fundamental questions about government's proper role in addressing historical inequities while maintaining equal treatment under law.