A federal judge has dealt a significant blow to the Biden administration's digital inclusion agenda, ruling that a $2.5 billion high-speed internet grant program unlawfully considered race when distributing funds. The decision, handed down Wednesday by U.S. District Judge John Bates, aligns with the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to dismantle diversity-focused initiatives across the federal government.
In his 35-page opinion, Bates leaned heavily on the Supreme Court's 2023 decision that ended race-conscious admissions in higher education. “At this stage, what matters is that the Digital Equity Act empowers the government to consider race when allocating federal money,” Bates wrote, echoing the high court's reasoning that using race to address general societal inequities does not constitute a compelling government interest.
The program, signed into law by President Biden in 2021 as part of the $1.2 trillion infrastructure package, aimed to further the previous administration's goal of universal internet access. It appropriated billions to support digital inclusion activities, particularly for underserved communities. But a requirement that applicants demonstrate how their projects would benefit racial minorities or other “covered populations” drew legal challenges.
The Trump administration, which has branded the initiative “racist” and “illegal,” moved earlier this year to cut off funding. President Trump signed executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs across federal agencies, and the Justice Department formally withdrew its defense of the program's legality. The ruling now gives the administration grounds to reinstate the program without the racial criteria, which Bates said could proceed lawfully.
Legal Limbo for Grant Recipients
The immediate fallout leaves the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) in a precarious position. The group sued the Trump administration last year after learning its $25.7 million grant was canceled. Bates noted that while the racial criteria are now invalid, NDIA can still pursue other claims once the government clarifies its next steps. “Until then, this case will continue along the ordinary track of civil litigation,” he wrote.
The ruling underscores the broader legal battles over race-conscious policies in federal programs. Critics argue that while bridging the digital divide is a worthy goal, using race as a proxy for disadvantage violates constitutional principles of equal protection. Supporters counter that the program was designed to address historical inequities in internet access, which disproportionately affect minority communities.
Bates, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, has previously weighed in on contentious issues, including challenges to Trump-era immigration policies. His decision here adds to a growing body of case law applying the Supreme Court's affirmative action precedent to federal spending programs.
The Trump administration is expected to move quickly to restructure the grant program without the racial criteria, but the political fallout is likely to continue. The ruling comes amid a broader crackdown on diversity initiatives, including the administration's push to halt mail-order abortion pills and its efforts to reverse Biden-era environmental protections. Meanwhile, critics have raised concerns about the erosion of due process in immigration courts, as the administration continues to reshape federal policy.
For now, the Digital Equity Act remains in legal limbo, with both sides bracing for further litigation over the scope of race-conscious federal spending.
