>> The Trump administration is putting its weight behind an effort to end a reparations program in Evanston for its black residents.

The program aims to provide payments to black residents and descendants of black residents who experienced housing discrimination in the city between 1919, 1969, the U.S.

filed to join an existing lawsuit challenging the program last week.

In a statement, assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division said, quote, They're our sound ways for a city to remedy past discrimination or direct resources to its most vulnerable citizens in neighborhoods simply handing out money based on race, however, is not the answer.

It is race discrimination, pure and simple.

And it is illegal in 2021.

Evanston became the first municipality in the nation to implement a reparations program for black residents.

So joining us now, our Christine Svensson, local council for Judicial Watch.

That's the organization representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging Evan since program.

And Xavier rainy CEO of the social impacts consulting firm Justice informed.

We also invited representatives from the city of Evanston Bay declined to join us in a statement, a spokesperson said, quote, the city of Evanston maintains its position on the legality of the Evanston reparations program.

While we are cognizant of the filing made by the DOJ, the city does not provide comments regarding active litigation.

My thanks to 2 of you for joining us again.

Welcome back.

So, Christine, I want to start with you.

What is your reaction to the U.S.

Justice Department joining this lawsuit that your organization is filed, challenging the Evanston reparations program.

So Bran is first of all, thanks for having me.

Glad to be here on behalf judicial watch.

>> So I was not surprised to see the Department of Justice intervene.

This would be a classic situation where they would be interested because as Harmeet Dhillon said, this is a relatively straightforward case.

As far as race discrimination goes.

And so this would be sort of a classic type of entree for the Department of Justice.

What does it mean for for how the case will proceed?

So there's a motion that they have filed meeting the DOJ to seek intervention that is being contested by the city of Evanston.

I assume that motion to intervene be granted and litigation will proceed.

The DOJ has added another count alleging that there is a violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

So that will also be borne out.

The case probably in the 3rd inning of the case when they decided to intervene.

So we have a long way to go.

But again, presume that they will be allowed maintain their presence in the case.

Xavier, why do you think the Trump administration took an interest in this?

in line with their past practices patterns of being.

>> Fairly against any racially, specifically mediations for governmental or social harms.

They've already expressed.

We've seen this from the executive orders shortly after President Trump's inauguration and ban saying the closures, various federal offices that were supporting the work of civil rights, particularly those in advance that for racial or gender discrimination as well as the E in die.

So it was not surprising to me that the federal government, Department of Justice, particularly which has been one of the great tools to President Trump, is used to suppress the work of racial equity in America over the last year and a that they joined.

I'm Christine, do you think that the U.S.

joining us lawsuit?

He think >> And it is a benefit.

Your lawsuit.

You think it helps you to strengthen show that, you know, you believe you've got a strong case when he went up to I believe that it does.

I believe that it helps our side.

It's also interesting because there are similar sort of on this is a pioneer test case and all over the country.

There are various municipalities and perhaps even states that are considering these issues.

And everyone's looking towards this case.

And so it is a big statement move that the DOJ decided to join it.

It sends a statement out to these municipalities around the country.

Xavier, for those who might be unfamiliar with the area and its history.

Remind us or what can you tell us about why Evanston implemented this reparations program and how this works?

It's it's a >> specific to housing, right?

So when most people think reparations, they think of chattel slavery in America.

So the preteen 65 era.

>> Where slavery was legalized here in the U.S.

and particularly African-Americans.

We're the ones who were enslaved and used to the economic benefit of the country and primarily through white landowners however, the Chicago Land region specifically has been really hot bed for racial discrimination through other economic means, namely through mortgages prior to 1948.

The usage of what call restrictive covenants was very much common place where white neighbors with sign agreement amongst one another that forbid, any of them from renting or selling to black president, specifically eventually that was struck down there after up until the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

And then later, the Fair Housing Act, we had contracts for deeds where there's another economic tool that predominately white families use to ensure the blacks were not provided real deeds for what seen as mortgages on paper.

But we're actually completely throughout the region.

We've had that challenge, right.

And then, of course, there is a there's redlining which came as well.

Those are different forms our great.

We just probably call redlining.

Exactly.

Okay.

And so instance program, why did do you think they were attempting to do with with the implementation of this reparations for couple things?

One, I think they're trying to acknowledge that it happened at all, which is something that I think that our government has a hard time.

>> Just do period.

Secondly, they were trying to do something and this is where I think it's gonna be interesting to watch this case.

As relates to the question of of Governmental interest, compelling governmental interest.

I personally, I think that the city of Evanston in passing this said that they have a governmental interest in knowing that they have a significant population of African American residents, including those who had experienced direct discrimination on the basis of race of racism due to their race as it relates to mortgage contracts.

They were saying we cannot move forward as a township as a city.

We cannot move forward with black residents as our neighbors, our countrymen, as our friends, unless we actually do the work of relational economic repair.

And I think that that is a that's something that's deviates greatly from the current federal administration, which says we absolutely can move forward as a country without ever doing anything to repair the specific racial harms that have plagued the black community in this country.

Christine, though, you your lawsuit argues that this program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Tell us how.

>> So the problem with this case is it is it involves race discrimination.

It is discriminating against my clients who are white.

>> Who are also applying to this program in giving money to people that are black just based on the color of their skin.

So when you have race discrimination, you have to have is Xavier mentioned a compelling government interest which is rarely found.

in this case they're compelling government.

They're compelling government interest instance, really relying upon societal discrimination that we all agree has existed.

It did exist 100 years ago and longer, of course.

So the Supreme Court has repeatedly said we're not in the business of remedying societal discrimination.

In addition to that compelling government interest problem.

There are ordinance is not narrowly tailored because the people that are receiving these grants that are African-American do not have to show that either they or their ancestors, our descent.

I'm sorry, the either they or their ancestors suffered housing discrimination.

There's no causal connection between the 2 in the city of Evanston.

Also in the ordinance, they don't actually cite a specific statute that says this was discriminatory.

This caused the harm to African-Americans.

I understand Xavier his point about the redlining and the restrictive covenants and those he is valid points.

The problem is that the city of Evanston, it's not necessarily should not be on the hook for that.

not the ones promulgated those policies is a matter of.

Is it a matter of just the way the law's written had the law been as specific as you name it?

>> Would that would that not be the same case with that?

Not with the problem that be the same for you.

It is a problem the way the law is I'm I'm sorry, don't really.

I just want to saying had the law necessitates a required that recipients prove that suffered under restrictive covenants, redlining where some of those other issues, if that were requirement of the law to receive the funding.

That not be a violation that would help their argument considerably.

But the other problem is that they have to show that there race neutral alternatives as well.

What I mean by that is even though blacks were living in areas where perhaps they could get mortgages or they were blighted neighborhoods, whatever the case may be, there were other races.

The also lived in those areas that also suffered consequences and housing discrimination, those individuals, whatever race you should be should would be part of any sort of lawsuit.

talks about the fact that people were discriminate against a base of housing, not just people about particular race.

Xavier, what's the reaction?

That argument?

Yeah, the plaintiffs that they're said that their families experience hardship.

>> Not racism.

And the basis of racial reparations is where you've been able to prove racism.

No, I agree Christina saying that it would be better perhaps for the families and any of the applicants to this fund of which I just want to be clear, the economic realities of what was taken even here in the city of Chicago is between 3 4 billion dollars it came to the redlining practices between 1948. in 1975, or into the passing of Community Reinvestment Act and 77, sorry, you're talking about billions of dollars.

This is a 25 million dollar fund to give out.

$25,000 mortgage assistance, or cash checks for One, let's talk about the scale.

But the other part you know, I would love to see White Plains coming in and saying the city of Evanston discriminated against my ancestors or my family directly on the basis of me being white in the city of Evanston.

Back in 1945, I would love for that to be the case, but I don't think that it.

This proves either the need for this fund, nor does disprove the reality of of what it would repair because the root of the word reparations as repair.

And I think that's what but the Supreme Court is against.

As Christine said, they have no job and repair of societal harms, but also many and the Trump administration have no have no love for repair and they don't see that as a concern of government.

And it's be nice thing, but it's not a responsibility thing.

And so, yeah, I would love to see those plaintiffs coming in and saying I can prove that on the basis of my race, I was discriminated against 60 years ago were there the same thing for black folks.

got to prove it maybe 10 seconds or so.

Had there not been other instances where the government made reparations for past wrong.

>> Where they stand, the they were yes, I'm thinking Japanese Americans Japanese.

That's the case.

And I'm thinking about absolutely, Christine, would there.

What do you think would be a more equitable way to implement a reparations program for black Americans?

Is there So to me, the most logical one would be.

>> something again, I'm not even saying this passes constitutional muster or that I even agree with it.

But one argument would be descendants of actual slaves would receive reparations to me, that's a better Constitution are now.

I think it's very difficult to prove and goes too far back.

So again, I'm not even saying that that would that would be valid.

But to me, you would have to have a connection to someone who actually suffered from the effects of slavery, whereas this I mean, housing discrimination.

As I said, a lot of people suffer housing discrimination.

A lot like a from a lot of different groups.

To me, that would be your best argument.

But I think it's untenable because it was too long ago.

that's where we'll have to leave it.

Obviously.

We'll see how this