Staff Reports
The federal judiciary just pushed back on a Biden-era rule that handed out broadband grant preferences by race. A Washington judge found the race-based language in the Digital Equity Act’s competitive grant program unconstitutional, and that ruling could reshuffle billions set aside for broadband and digital inclusion.
What the court actually decided
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates refused to throw out a suit challenging the Digital Equity Act’s race-based grant language. Judge Bates wrote that the statute “empowers the government to consider race when allocating federal money,” and he applied the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions standard to say such race-based preferences face the strictest legal test. The Department of Justice had already told Congress it would not defend the race classifications, so the judge’s decision lands on familiar constitutional ground.
How much money and who is affected
The Digital Equity Act authorized roughly $2.75 billion for digital inclusion work, with about $1.25 billion in the competitive grant program at issue. The law defines “covered populations” to include low-income people, rural residents, veterans, people with disabilities, those with language barriers — and explicitly, individuals who are members of a racial or ethnic minority group. The Trump administration halted those competitive awards last year and a grantee, the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, sued to try to restore them.
Political fallout and the next legal moves
This ruling leaves three clear paths: the Commerce Department, led by Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, can try to restart grants after removing or rewriting the race language; the government can appeal to the D.C. Circuit; or it can seek a stay while it fights on. Judges have suggested the race language might be severed so the rest of the program survives. Either way, this decision extends the Students for Fair Admissions principle beyond college admissions and into federal spending programs — a change that should make every taxpayer and policymaker pay attention.
Bottom line: help by need, not by box-checking
This is more than courtroom hair-splitting. If the government wants to close digital divides, do it by income, location, and clear needs — not by handing out money based on race. Conservatives should applaud a ruling that protects the Constitution and forces better policy design. Now watch whether the administration fixes the law or drags this up the appellate chain. Either outcome will tell us whether Washington prefers constitutional clarity or the politics of preference.
