The federal government has asked a judge to suspend an innovative reparations program in Evanston, Illinois, which gives $25,000 to Black residents affected by race-based housing discrimination in the 20th century. This request comes as part of an ongoing lawsuit that contends the program is unconstitutional.
Initiated in 2021, this program is the first of its kind in America, allocating $20 million to Black residents—and their direct descendants—who lived in the city between 1919 and 1969 and faced housing discrimination. Additionally, anyone who experienced discrimination due to city policies post-1969 is eligible, regardless of their race.
The city has already distributed over $7 million, funded by local taxes on legal marijuana sales, in $25,000 increments to help residents with home repairs, real estate down payments, and interest or late fees on city properties.
In a recent court filing, the U.S. Department of Justice described the program as “racially discriminatory,” claiming it breaches the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by offering benefits based on race.
“Cities can address past discrimination in constructive ways and support vulnerable communities, but simply distributing money based on race is not effective,” remarked Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
According to the U.S. Census, about 14% of Evanston’s approximately 76,000 residents identify as Black, while 11% identify as being of multiple races. A study from 2024 noted that many Black residents live in historically low-income areas of the Fifth and Second Wards.
The issue of compensation has been a hot topic for a long time.
Reparations have become a significant issue in the U.S. since the end of slavery in 1865, and the 2020 death of George Floyd sparked renewed discussions and polarized opinions. At least five states—including California, New York, and Maryland—and over a dozen cities have formed task forces or commissions on reparations, though none has implemented a program as actionable as Evanston’s.
Robin Lou Simmons, who championed the program in Evanston and currently leads its overseeing committee, referred to the lawsuit and federal intervention as “scare tactics” trying to dissuade other local governments from exploring similar reparations initiatives.
Michael Bekesha, one of the lawyers involved in a lawsuit against Evanston on behalf of six plaintiffs, stated that applicants are not required to prove personal harm related to the city. Essentially, any Black resident qualifies.
Bekesha emphasized that Evanston’s reparations program differs from past efforts, which provided compensation to Japanese Americans interned during World War II or to individuals tortured by Chicago police between the 1970s and early 1990s.
“Reparations initiatives are not new, but they have always been connected to specific injustices faced by specific individuals,” Bekesha articulated. “In Evanston, there’s no link between those receiving funds and any actions taken by the city.”
Simmons strongly rejected the suggestion that the program wasn’t tailored to address historical injustices. She asserted that the city’s redlining policies from 1919 to 1969 had detrimental effects on Black communities over time, mirroring nationwide practices where Black families were often denied housing in affluent neighborhoods. Such policies typically limit access to well-paying jobs, healthcare, and education, she noted.
“Evanston established a new standard. It demonstrated that racial reparations are feasible,” Simmons stated.
Conservatives reject race-based reparations
The federal government’s move to terminate the program aligns with a wider conservative opposition to race-based reparations and marks a shift from former President Biden’s support for congressional investigations into addressing the historical mistreatment of racial minorities.
This also contrasts with recent attitudes from international organizations like the United Nations, which adopted a resolution urging countries to make reparations for the enslavement of Africans. The U.S. was one of just three countries to reject this resolution, while the UK and all 27 EU nations opted to abstain from voting.
