Evanston, Illinois handed more than $3 million in taxpayer cash to residents based solely on skin color.
Now a federal judge just refused to kill the lawsuit challenging it.
And the attorney who landed that victory says mayors across America are about to reconsider everything.
Evanston Reparations Lawsuit Clears First Major Hurdle in Federal Court
Evanston, Illinois became the first city in America to actually pay out reparations – $25,000 checks to black residents and their descendants who lived in the city between 1919 and 1969.
The program pledged $10 million over a decade.
So far, 137 people have collected $3.47 million in taxpayer money, with eligibility determined by one thing: race.
Now the City of Evanston tried to get the lawsuit challenging that arrangement thrown out before it could do any damage.
They argued the plaintiffs – six descendants of Evanston residents from 1919 to 1969 – never applied to the program.
The judge didn't buy it.
U.S. District Judge John F. Kness ruled that applying to a program you're ineligible for solely because of your race would have been "a futile gesture."
That is the legal equivalent of a body blow.
The case is Flinn et al. v. Evanston, filed by Judicial Watch in May 2024, challenging the program's use of race as the sole eligibility gate for $25,000 cash payments.
"Five people that, but for the color of their skin, would be eligible for $25,000," Judicial Watch senior attorney Michael Bekesha told Fox News Digital.
Judicial Watch argues the program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – and a federal judge just said that argument deserves a full hearing.
Bekesha told Fox News Digital exactly what this ruling means for every other city watching from the sidelines.
"Those cities would take a hard look at what they were planning on doing and realize that if they're going to try and get reparations programs to be lawful, they are going to have to do something differently," he said.
Brandon Johnson Pushes Chicago Reparations Program as Federal Case Looms
Woke Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson didn't get the memo.
While his neighbor to the north fights a federal lawsuit, Chicago's mayor is pressing forward with a public forum called "Repair Chicago" – designed to gather what he calls "lived experiences of harm of Black Chicagoans" as a prelude to the city's own reparations push.
Illinois' statewide reparations commission has already released a report laying out the state's history of harms against black residents.
Cincinnati is eyeing reparations funded through marijuana tax revenue.
San Francisco just pushed a new reparations fund toward Mayor Daniel Lurie's desk for signature.
These cities are watching the Evanston case – and for good reason.
The Supreme Court in 2023 made one thing crystal clear in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard: the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause forbids the government from handing out benefits on the basis of race.
Judicial Watch is now applying that same principle to taxpayer-funded reparations – and a federal judge just said the argument has legs.
Race-Based Government Programs Face Unconstitutional Barrier After SFFA Ruling
Evanston's program was engineered from the start to withstand legal challenges.
City officials spent years compiling historical documentation on redlining, restrictive covenants, and racially targeted zoning ordinances to justify handing out cash based on skin color.
They still lost the motion to dismiss.
The Constitution doesn't offer a "we documented the discrimination thoroughly enough" exception.
It says equal protection. Full stop.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated it plainly: "The Constitution forbids race-based government programs like this."
In January 2025, San Francisco shut down its transgender guaranteed-income program – one that funneled taxpayer cash exclusively to biological black and Latino men who identify as women – after Judicial Watch sued and the city folded.
Asheville, North Carolina pulled racially targeted provisions from a city-funded scholarship program rather than fight Judicial Watch in court.
California's race and LGBT quotas for corporate boards got struck down after Judicial Watch took them to trial in May 2022.
Cities that pick this fight lose it.
Evanston's city spokesperson told Fox News Digital the city will "vehemently defend this case."
They said that before the judge let it proceed.
The taxpayers of Evanston now fund both the $25,000 payments going to one racial group – and the legal bills trying to defend that arrangement in federal court.
What a Judicial Watch Win Means for Every City With a Reparations Plan
Bekesha isn't waiting for the final ruling to make the impact felt.
"Even now, before we get to the merits, before the court rules that the reparations program in Evanston is unconstitutional, cities are going to take a real hard look and take a second before they decide to implement any reparations plan," he said.
Brandon Johnson should tape that quote to his mirror.
Every city that already paid out reparations based on race just handed Judicial Watch a roadmap – proof of exactly who got paid, how much, and on what racial basis.
The Supreme Court already told America that race-based government programs don't survive the Constitution.
Judicial Watch is just making sure cities that didn't listen find that out in federal court instead of on their own terms.
Sources:
- Joshua Q. Nelson, "What the first federal challenge to a local reparations program means for other cities," Fox News, April 1, 2026.
- Judicial Watch, "Federal Court Allows Lawsuit against Reparations Program to Move Forward," judicialwatch.org, March 30, 2026.
- Judicial Watch, "Federal Court Hearing Set in Civil Rights Class Action Lawsuit Against Reparations Program," judicialwatch.org, May 2, 2025.
- Hope Perry, "Lawsuit challenging Evanston reparations program allowed to proceed," Evanston RoundTable, March 30, 2026.
