Economic Justice program

Economic Justice program is sponsored by Chicago Lawyers' Committee. The Economic Justice program aims to address systemic economic inequalities and close the racial wealth gap in historically disinvested communities across Illinois.

Economic Justice Project | Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Problems with voting? Call the Election Protection hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE. The Economic Justice Project advances impact litigation, policy advocacy, and community education to dismantle systemic barriers that deny Black communities and other communities of color equal access to economic opportunity and quality health care.

We work to confront entrenched discrimination, protect equity initiatives under attack, and champion an inclusive economy where all people can thrive free from injustice. Latest Litigation Updates Sign-On Letters & Statements Public Education & Outreach The Economic Justice Project (EJP) is committed to transforming the economic conditions of Black workers and other historically excluded communities.

We pursue impact litigation, advance public policy, and conduct community education to prevent the deepening and entrenchment of current disparities in economic, health, and other outcomes and promote equity in economic prosperity and health. In all of our endeavors, we elevate the voices of community- based organizations that are working to confront systemic inequities in economic opportunity and access to healthcare.

EJP envisions an equitable economy grounded in racial justice and equal opportunity. Racial equity programs and initiatives recognize and address the reality that Black communities and other communities of color continue to experience systemic discrimination and the historical ramifications of slavery and segregation.

Through our work supporting racial equity programs, the Lawyers’ Committee strives to help build a more inclusive society by ensuring that artificial barriers to opportunity are removed for Black communities and communities of color, and that these same communities receive the necessary support and resources to overcome historic and ongoing barriers in accessing economic opportunities and high quality health care.

Protecting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives Leveraging our expertise and experience, the Lawyers’ Committee’s responds to attacks on DEI and equity programming through litigation and amicus support, vigorously defending equity efforts designed to combat longstanding, systemic racism affecting Black communities and communities of color.

We help defend entities whose equity programs are being challenged, either through direct representation, as intervenors, or through amicus support. We provide legal analysis to support the legality of the challenged programs, as well as context on the systemic barriers that Black communities and other communities of color continue to face in our society. Chicago Women In Trades v.

Trump On February 26, 2025, the Lawyers’ Committee filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive orders that severely restrict and chill diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives on behalf of Chicago Women in Trades (“CWIT”), a nonprofit dedicated to supporting women in the skilled construction trades.

The executive orders require the cancellation of all federal “equity-related” grants and contracts, and the inclusion in every federal contract or grant award a term mandating that recipients certify they do not operate any programs promoting “DEI,” even those falling outside of their federally funded work, under penalty of False Claim Act liability.

The lawsuit argues that these requirements violate the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as the Separation of Powers under the U.S. Constitution. On March 27, the district court of the Northern District of Illinois issued a partial temporary restraining order and on April 15, the court partially granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.

The preliminary injunction prohibits the Defendants from terminating any of CWIT’s federal grants and further prohibits the Department of Labor from requiring a DEI certification in any grants or contracts nationwide. Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Seventh Circuit on July 3, 2025. Equity is what CWIT is and what CWIT does.

CWIT has a rich 44-year history of tradeswomen advocacy; creating women-focused trades pipeline programs, establishing women-focused pre-apprenticeship programs, developing best practices to recruit and retain tradeswomen, and implementing innovative approaches to gender equity work in nontraditional occupations in Chicago and across the country.

However, the Executive Orders force CWIT into a near- impossible situation with far-reaching consequences for the women and skilled trade stakeholders CWIT serves. Under the Executive Orders, CWIT is forced to choose between compliance with the orders or eliminating its equity-driven work. Women and tradeswomen-led organizations across the country turn to CWIT for assistance, guidance, and as a model of what is possible.

The loss of an organization that serves as a pipeline for education, training, support, and guidance—building both personal and economic growth—would be immeasurable. The impact extends far beyond individuals; it shapes the construction industry, communities, and the future of the workforce. Ultimately, a loss is not just financial – it is a loss of opportunity, empowerment, and progress.

On July 3, Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Seventh Circuit. The case was argued on January 30, 2026. A decision is pending.

On October 30, 2025, the court upheld the preliminary injunction and dismissed the government’s motion for partial stay and indicative ruling. The court found that the current injunction enjoining the Department of Labor from enforcing the certification provision was and remains necessary to provide CWIT complete relief and comports with the Supreme Court’s analysis in Trump v. Casa.

Freedom Network USA v.

Trump On October 10, 2025, Freedom Network USA (FNUSA) filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, challenging executive orders that severely restrict and chill Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives and jeopardize the future of its work to protect human trafficking survivors and prevent trafficking in the U.S.FNUSA is represented by a team of civil rights lawyers from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and pro-bono counsel Crowell & Moring LLP.

The lawsuit, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asks the court for a preliminary and permanent injunction to block the enforcement of the executive orders as unlawful and unconstitutional. Read the complaint here .

Read the First Preliminary Injunction Order Read the Second Preliminary Injunction Order Read the Second Amended Complaint We are fighting to ensure the Constitution protects survivors’ voices and lifesaving services for trafficking survivors nationwide.

Freedom Network USA serves over 4,000 survivors annually as the nation’s largest coalition of advocates, service providers, and human trafficking survivors working to end human trafficking and provide lifesaving services for trafficking survivors.

As a result of Trump’s anti-DEI Executive Orders, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has scrutinized FNUSA’s equity-driven programming for words and content that they arbitrarily interpret to violate the anti-equity Executive Orders. The anti-DEI Executive Orders force FNUSA to erase, hide, and ignore the systemic factors and discrimination that cause these communities to be more susceptible to trafficking.

This only perpetuates cycles of poverty and abuse that results in more victims. 70% of FNUSA’s funding comes from the DOJ. Under these circumstances, FNUSA either faces censorship under the pressure to keep its funding or risk termination and exposure to the False Claims Act.

Both scenarios severely impede the organization’s ability to continue its work. The Lawyers’ Committee is representing FNUSA because protecting trafficking survivors is a critical racial justice issue — 40 percent of all trafficking victims are Black and are more likely to face the criminal justice system for trafficking-related reasons.

Furthermore, Black, Brown, immigrant, and LGBTQIA+ survivors are disproportionately impacted by human trafficking, and have been historically overlooked by legal and social service providers, underscoring the need for FNUSA’s equity-driven programs.

On February 20, 2026, Freedom Network filed an amended motion for preliminary injunction seeking to stop the DOJ from requiring organizations applying for TVPA funding to agree to cooperate with immigration enforcement and certify they do not promote diversity, equity, or inclusion as part of their applications. On Feb.

24, 2026, the court granted a temporary restraining order against the government, prohibiting the DOJ from requiring applicants for TVPA-authorized grants to certify their compliance with the new funding conditions, finding they likely violate the law.

On March 23, 2026, the court granted a preliminary injunction against the DOJ that blocks them from forcing any grantee or contractor nationwide to certify that they do not operate DEI programs to receive funding. It also enjoins DOJ from terminating any federal grant that is authorized under the TVPA.

The court also stayed new funding conditions that would have required organizations applying for grants through the DOJ’s Services for Victims of Human Trafficking program to agree to cooperate with immigration enforcement.

The preliminary injunction protects approximately 9,000 DOJ grantees and contractors from the requirement of certifying that they do not engage in DEI work under False Claims Act penalties and approximately $1 billion worth of TVPA authorized federal funding, while the injunction is in place.

On May 15, 2026, Freedom Network filed a second amended complaint for a preliminary injunction with three additional plaintiffs: Life-Span, Worker Justice Center of New York, and Young Women’s Christian Association (“YWCA”) Kalamazoo. The three new plaintiffs also seek to stop the DOJ from requiring organizations applying for TVPA funding to comply with new funding conditions that make it near-impossible to serve survivors.

On June 29, 2026, the court granted a stay against the DOJ that temporarily blocks the enforcement of new grant conditions in the Services for Victims of Human Trafficking program and the Housing Assistance for Victims of Trafficking program. Those funding conditions would make serving and sheltering survivors near impossible. The court relief safeguards an estimated $45 million in federal funding for anti-trafficking services.

The stay also temporarily blocks the DOJ’s Office of Victims of Crime (OVC) from requiring applicants to certify under False Claims Act penalties that they do not operate DEI programs to receive funding authorized under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA).

On June 8, 2026, the NAACP, represented by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Lawyers for Good Government, filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and Andrea Lucas in her official capacity as Chair of the EEOC.

The lawsuit seeks records concerning the EEOC’s solicitation of discrimination complaints by white men related to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

The Lawyers’ Committee submitted the original FOIA request on March 9, 2026, on behalf of the NAACP, seeking records that could shed light on whether and to what extent the EEOC is handling workplace discrimination complaints differently based on the race or sex of charging parties.

The request followed public statements and outreach by Chair Lucas inviting white men to submit discrimination complaints to the EEOC and contact her office directly.

The request sought records related to the agency’s enforcement guidance, handling and prioritization of discrimination allegations, data concerning race- and sex-based discrimination complaints, records connected to the solicitation video, and communications involving senior EEOC officials and key terms related to DEI and white male discrimination complaints.

The EEOC failed to provide responsive documents or issue a determination by the required deadline. The lawsuit asks the court to compel the agency to conduct an adequate search and promptly produce all non-exempt records responsive to the NAACP’s request. The EEOC was created to enforce federal workplace anti-discrimination laws fairly and equally.

The public has a right to know whether the agency charged with protecting workers from discrimination is setting enforcement priorities in a way that treats complainants differently based on race or sex.

While civil rights laws protect all workers, including white men who file discrimination complaints, the EEOC’s public solicitation raises serious questions about whether the agency is advancing a broader political attack on lawful diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.

DEI programs are not about quotas or preferential treatment; lawful DEI practices help employers meet their civil rights obligations, remove barriers to opportunity, and create workplaces where qualified people are not excluded. The administration’s campaign to dismantle DEI initiatives relies on a false and divisive narrative that casts equity efforts as harmful to white men.

That narrative risks obscuring the systemic barriers that continue to affect Black workers, women, low-wage workers, and other communities that have historically faced discrimination in the workplace. Transparency is essential.

If the EEOC is changing how it categorizes, prioritizes, or investigates discrimination complaints, the public deserves to understand why, how those decisions are being made, and whether they are consistent with the agency’s civil rights mandate.

On March 9, 2026, the Lawyers’ Committee submitted a FOIA request to the EEOC on behalf of the NAACP seeking records related to the agency’s solicitation of white male discrimination complaints, its handling and prioritization of discrimination charges, and any related changes in enforcement guidance or agency data practices.

On March 10, 2026, the EEOC acknowledged receipt of the request, designated it as complex, invoked a ten-working-day extension, and denied the NAACP’s request for a fee waiver. The EEOC failed to provide responsive records or issue a determination by the April deadline.

On June 8, 2026 , the NAACP filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the EEOC to conduct an adequate search and produce all non-exempt responsive records. VA State Conference NAACP v.

Governor Glenn Youngkin On April 15, 2024, the Economic Justice Project, with pro bono counsel Ropes & Gray LLP, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Virginia State Conference NAACP against the Virginia Governor’s Office seeking the release of public records relating to the Commonwealth’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and its compliance with Virginia state law.

Why It Matters: The Virginia General Assembly established the office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and the position of Chief DEI Officer in 2020, with the duties to promote inclusive practices in state government, address systemic inequities in state government practices, and facilitate equity policy.

The VA NAACP requested information about the Director and Office of DEI out of concern they are abrogating their duties as mandated by the General Assembly and undermining the very ideals they are charged with promoting.

The public records request was sent after Governor Youngkin’s appointed Director of DEI stated during remarks at a training on DEI for the Virginia Military Institute’s faculty and staff in 2023, “Let’s take a moment right now to kill that cow. DEI is dead.

” The case seeks to reinforce the basic principle that democracy cannot operate in darkness and to shine a light on the state’s failure to comply with its statutory responsibility to advance diversity, equity and inclusion, outlined in Virginia law.

In September 2025, the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond issued a ruling condemning Governor Youngkin’s administration for a “willing and knowing violation of the VAFOIA” (Virginia Freedom of Information Act). In addition to finding the Governor’s Office violated the law, the court ordered the Governor’s Office to pay a fine of $500.

The Governor’s Office lost its request to dismiss the case, allowing the case to move forward. The Governor’s Office has repeatedly argued, unsuccessfully, that the Virginia NAACP does not have the right to obtain responsive records.

Rejecting the Governor’s argument, the court held that the Virginia FOIA allows associations to make requests on behalf of its members, and that the Virginia NAACP “is an association of the persons who are citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia and are aggrieved by the governor’s failure to provide these records.

And it is beyond the question in this record that the NAACP is a long-existing, civil rights organization that clearly would have interest in the principals [sic] of diversity, equity, opportunity, and inclusion. ”  Case: Perkins Coie v. Department of Justice, et al.

On April 3, 2025, the Lawyers’ Committee filed an amicus brief in support of the law firm Perkins Coie, after the firm sued the Trump Administration for issuing an executive order that targeted the firm because it once represented Hillary Clinton, among other clients and causes with which the President disagreed.

The Lawyers’ Committee’s brief highlights how the executive order chills legal advocacy and threatens the tradition of law firms providing pro bono representation to protect civil rights for those most vulnerable in our country. The Lawyers’ Committee filed its brief in support of Plaintiff’s request for permanent injunctive relief, which would stop the administration from enforcing its unlawful executive order.

The Lawyers’ Committee filed similar amicus briefs in support of law firm Susman Godfrey LLP on April 25, 2025, in Susman Godfrey LLP v. Office of the President, et al. , No. 1:25-cv-1107 (LLA) (D.

D. C.) , in support of Wilmer Hale on April 11, 2025, in Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v.

Executive Office of the President, No. 1:25-cv-00917 (RJL) (D. D. C.)

, and in support of law firm Jenner & Block on April 10, 2025, in Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice et al. , No. 1:25-cv-916 (JDB) (D.

D. C.) In all three cases, federal judges struck down the executive orders targeting law firms as unconstitutional.

The Trump Administration has appealed each district court decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 3, 2026, the Lawyers’ Committee filed an amicus brief in D. C.

Circuit in support of the law firms after the government appealed its loss in the district court. Why It Matters: These unconstitutional executive orders target law firms as well as the zealous pro bono advocacy that lies at the heart of why the Lawyers’ Committee was founded over 60 years ago.

The executive orders seek to silence critics of the current administration and take away avenues to legal recourse, particularly for those who depend on pro bono advocacy. Without pro bono legal assistance, many cases on some of the most contested and controversial issues may never make their way to the courts. Case: American Alliance for Equal Rights v.

Fearless Fund Management, et al . On September 1, 2023, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, with pro bono co-counsel Crowell & Moring LLP, filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself and six other civil rights organizations in opposition to a motion for preliminary injunction filed in the Northern District of Georgia by an anti-civil rights organization, American Alliance for Equal Rights.

The lawsuit alleged that a venture capital firm that provided grants to Black women-led start-ups is discriminatory against non-Black applicants under section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, our country’s oldest civil rights statute, which guarantees that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States have the same rights to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by “white citizens.

” Why It Matters: In our amicus brief, we argue that section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 should not be used to strike down a private charitable grantmaking program designed to remedy discrimination against Black women in starting a business.

Relying on the history of the law’s passage and the text of the Act, we argue that section 1981 is a race-conscious statute designed to abolish the “badges and incidents” of slavery for formerly enslaved Black people in the United States, and that a remedial program designed to provide start-up funds for Black women entrepreneurs, who receive less than 1% of venture capital, is wholly consistent with and not violative of section 1981.

In June 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ordered an immediate temporary pause to the grant program, finding it likely violated the law. In September 2024, the parties settled the case, with Fearless Fund agreeing to voluntarily end the grant program. Case: Alexandre, et al.

v. Amazon.

com, Inc On December 11, 2024, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, with pro bono co-counsel Crowell & Moring LLP, filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself and five other nonprofit organizations, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the defendant in a case that challenged a grant program that provided $10,000 in start-up funds to qualifying delivery service providers who are “Black, Latinx, and Native American entrepreneurs.

” The plaintiffs alleged violations of California state civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 Why it matters: Congress passed Section 1981 to protect Black citizens from white citizens “whose object was to make their former slaves dependent serfs, victims of unjust laws, and debarred from all progress and elevation by organized social prejudices[.] ” John Doe v.

Kamehameha Schs. , 470 F. 3d 827, 836 (9th Cir.

2006) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Programs like Amazon’s Delivery Service Provider grants are uniquely positioned to further Section 1981’s historical remedial purpose by addressing inequities in access to funding for Black-owned businesses. On May 20, 2025, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.

Case: American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Jorge Zaminillo, et al.

On March 13, 2024, the Economic Justice Project, with co-counsel LatinoJustice PRLDEF and Washington Lawyers’ Committee, filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Afro Latino Forum, ASPIRA Association, and Hispanic Federation in the District Court of the District of Columbia in a case alleging that an internship program for undergraduate students with the Smithsonian Institute’s Museum of the American Latino is discriminatory against non-Latino applicants.

The amicus brief explains the racial and ethnic heterogeneity among Latinos, a legacy of discrimination that persist against them, and the value of an internship program that expands opportunity for Latino students. The brief explains how measures such as targeted outreach or the expression of race/ethnicity in the application process are wholly consistent with and in furtherance of existing anti-discrimination laws.

Finally, the brief addresses the importance of upholding the legality of these measures as critical tools to expand economic opportunity and overcome discrimination. Why It Matters: The lawsuit sought judicial condemnation of practices that are both critical to addressing racial inequality and well within the confines of the law, including the collection of demographic information that was sequestered from the selection committee.

AAER takes an extremist position that an employer can never know an applicant’s race or ethnicity during the selection process. An outcome in plaintiff’s favor would have infringed on applicants’ rights to express their identities when seeking opportunities for advancement and on employers’ ability to identify systemic barriers in the application process or measure their progress on diversity goals.

In March 2024, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit after the Smithsonian agreed to include language on its website clarifying that the internship program was equally open to students of all races and ethnicities, without preference or restriction based on race or ethnicity. The evidence demonstrated that was already the museum’s policy and practice notwithstanding the lawsuit. Case: Roberts v.

Progressive Preferred Ins. Co.

& Circular Board d/b/a Hello Alice On October 25, 2023, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, with co-counsel Crowell & Moring LLP, filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself and the Southern Poverty Law Center, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and Latino Justice PRLDEF in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case brought by America First Legal on behalf of a white male business owner against Progressive and its nonprofit partner, Hello Alice, alleging their grant program for businesses owned and operated by Black entrepreneurs violates section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

The brief explained the need for racially informed philanthropy because of historical and ongoing discrimination in venture capital, and the history, purpose and intent of section 1981 as remedial and thus in harmony with race conscious grantmaking. Read the amicus brief (filed in the District Court).

Why It Matters: The Lawyers’ Committee’s amicus brief, like its briefs in other cases challenging private efforts to advance equity, discussed how thwarting remedial grant programs for Black entrepreneurs runs counter to section 1981’s Congressional intent to actualize the 13th amendment’s abolition of slavery.

The lawsuit aims to use Section 1981—a statute intended to concretize the promises of the Thirteenth Amendment—to cut back private, philanthropic measures intended to further racial justice. Section 1981 granted emancipated Black citizens basic economic rights. .

The bill’s text ensured formerly enslaved individuals had the right to “make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws,” specifying that those benefits should be the same as those “enjoyed by white citizens. ” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).

The enshrinement of these rights would “enable them to act as autonomous, productive workers,” and, in turn, “accumulate some material wealth. ” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).

Congress’ intent to abolish “all badges and incidents of slavery” under Section 1981 is just as important today as it was during the height of the Black Codes. And expanding, rather than shrinking, market access to historically and currently excluded groups is as central to Section 1981’s design today as when it was first passed.

On May 21, 2024, the district court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek retrospective relief under § 1981 of the Civil Rights Act because he had not alleged he would have received a grant had he been able to apply for one. He also lacked standing to seek prospective relief because the defendants had dropped the race-based eligibility criteria from the following year’s grant program.

The plaintiff appealed and on February 24, 2026, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case. Case: Lange v.

Houston County On October 30, 2024, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the plaintiff in this case in which a transgender sheriff’s deputy challenged her employer’s denial of insurance benefits for gender-affirming surgery on the basis that it was an explicitly discriminatory policy on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the main federal law that prohibits discrimination in employment.

After a panel agreed with the plaintiff, the defendant sought and the Eleventh Circuit granted en banc review. On rehearing, the Eleventh Circuit en banc reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that a policy that does not cover gender-affirming surgery does not facially violate Title VII. Why It Matters: The case sought to clarify the rights of LGBTQ+ workers under Title VII.

The Lawyers’ Committee’s brief explained how a heightened evidentiary standard in cases challenging facially discriminatory policies would have grave impacts on Black workers and other systemically marginalized workers. Case: Azadeh Khatibi et al v. Randy Hawkins et al.

On October 30, 2024, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of California’s law requiring continuing medical education courses to include discussion of implicit bias in the curriculum.

The conservative organization Do No Harm which files lawsuits to block health initiatives aimed at addressing racial health disparities, challenged California’s law, claiming that it violated the speech rights of those who taught the curriculum.

The Lawyers’ Committee, representing the California Hawaii State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”) as well as the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, filed their brief to address mischaracterizations made by the appellant about implicit bias.

The brief highlights the ways in which implicit bias in the medical field contributes to and perpetuates health disparities, the adverse impact it has on the health of Black patients and other patients of color, and how implicit bias can be addressed by provider training. Updates : On July 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California’s law, rejecting Do No Harm’s claim that the law violated free speech.

As a result, implicit bias training remains a requirement in continuing medical education courses. On August 8, 2025, Do No Harm filed a petition for en banc review,and on September 23, 2025, the State of California responded in opposition to the petition. Why It Matters: Implicit bias training is a necessary tool to reduce racial health disparities and improve treatment outcomes for Black patients and other patients of color.

An adverse ruling will impact Black and other people of color in California, specifically those patients who suffer from health disparities caused by implicit bias. It will also undermine instruction and training to address racial inequities in health care settings and beyond. Case: State of Mississippi et al v.

Kennedy On November 12, 2024, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Greensboro Health Disparities Collaborative and NAACP State Conferences for Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, and Montana in the Southern District Court of Mississippi in a case that sought to stop the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services from including the implementation of anti-racism plans as an optional clinical practice improvement activity for Medicare providers.

The anti-racism rule was promulgated by the Center for Medicaid and Medicare to encourage medical providers to help address racial health disparities, after decades of research revealed that racial and ethnic minorities often receive lower quality of care.

The brief filed by the Lawyers’ Committee argued in favor of maintaining the anti-racism rule, highlighting the persistent racial health disparities that exist specifically within the states challenging the rule, and noting that the communities amici serve, Black communities and other communities of color, rely on interventions like the anti-racism rule to address discrimination in healthcare.

Why It Matters: There are still rampant health disparities and discrimination in health care, as Black individuals tend to receive less and lower quality health care than white individuals. Racial health disparities cannot be explained away by referencing the economic or educational differences between racial minorities compared to the white population.

These disparities in health care and health outcomes are due, at least in part, to the racial biases of health care providers. Furthermore, a strong body of research shows that some racial disparities in healthcare are due to racism within the medical system. Although the federal government has made efforts to combat these racial biases in the past, those efforts have fallen short of the mark.

Anti-racism plans and health equity efforts are not only wholly necessary, but lead to better health outcomes for both Black and white individuals, as well as other individuals of color. On May 30, 2025, the court ordered the case administratively closed after CMS announced it would suspend the anti-racism