A federal judge in Kentucky has issued a partial injunction against a U.S. Transportation Department program aimed at awarding contracts to minority-owned businesses, signaling potential nationwide implications.
According to The Washington Post, U.S. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove's ruling limits the scope of the injunction to two transportation contractors operating in Kentucky and Indiana. However, the judge's opinion suggests that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their constitutional claims against the program.
The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program, which aims to allocate at least 10% of federal transportation infrastructure funding to firms owned by women and minorities, is the latest government affirmative action initiative to face legal challenges. This ruling follows similar injunctions against other federal diversity programs in recent months.
The DBE program's partial block is part of a broader trend of legal challenges to diversity initiatives in both private and government contracting sectors. These challenges have gained momentum following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn race-conscious college admissions in June 2023.
In March 2024, a federal judge in Texas ordered the Minority Business Development Agency to open its doors to all entrepreneurs, including White business owners. Similarly, in the summer of 2023, a Tennessee judge ruled that a Small Business Administration program for minority contractors could no longer presume certain ethnic groups were inherently "disadvantaged."
These legal actions reflect a growing scrutiny of race-based preferences in various sectors, with critics arguing that such programs violate constitutional principles of equal protection.
The DBE program, established in the early 1980s, has been a significant channel for directing federal funds to minority-owned businesses in the transportation sector. The program has been activated multiple times, most recently under the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in 2021.
According to data provided by the Transportation Department, disadvantaged businesses have earned almost $34 billion through federal transportation contracts in the past five budget years. This figure represents about 12.5% of overall spending, slightly exceeding the program's 10% target.
The preliminary injunction issued by Judge Van Tatenhove means that the Transportation Department cannot use race- and gender-based criteria on contracts involving the plaintiffs, Mid-America Milling and Bagshaw Trucking. The full scope of the injunction remains to be clarified, but it could potentially extend to other states where the plaintiffs operate.
Supporters of the DBE program argue that it addresses ongoing discrimination in the federally assisted transportation contracting market. John Porcari, co-chair of the Equity in Infrastructure Project, emphasized the program's role in fostering competition and providing opportunities:
It's a matter of opportunity in the infrastructure space. In many cases, it's actually bringing up communities, it's actually increasingly generational wealth in communities.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs contend that the program's race- and gender-based preferences violate the Constitution's equal protection clause. Gregory Bagshaw, vice president of Bagshaw Trucking, stated in his declaration:
I do not believe it is right for the federal government to discriminate against any person based on their race, no matter what that race is. It is demeaning and dehumanizing to decide who is best qualified to perform work in the construction industry or in any industry based upon the owner's skin color.
The contrasting perspectives highlight the ongoing debate surrounding affirmative action programs and their role in addressing historical disparities versus potential constitutional concerns.
The federal judge's partial block of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program marks another challenge to government affirmative action initiatives. While the injunction currently applies to specific plaintiffs and states, it signals potential wider implications for minority contract programs nationwide. The case underscores the tension between efforts to address historical discrimination and constitutional equal protection principles, with further legal developments expected as the case progresses.
