Ultima Services Corp v. USDA: 8(a) racial presumption struck down
Citation: Ultima Servs. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. 2:20-cv-00041 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2023) Primary source ↗
Full explanation
The 8(a) Business Development Program, codified at 13 CFR Part 124, has historically used a 'rebuttable presumption' that members of designated racial and ethnic minority groups (Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian-Pacific, Subcontinent Asian) are 'socially disadvantaged' — meaning the SBA presumes the social disadvantage element of 8(a) eligibility is satisfied without further evidence.
In **Ultima Services Corp v. USDA** (E.D. Tenn. July 2023), Judge Clifton Corker ruled that this racial presumption violates the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the federal government. The court found that the SBA had not satisfied the strict-scrutiny standard required to use race as a determining factor in federal contracting eligibility.
**SBA's response was operational, not litigative.** Within months of the ruling, SBA updated its 8(a) application process to require *all* applicants — including those who would previously have benefited from the racial presumption — to submit a written narrative demonstrating social disadvantage based on personal experiences of bias, discrimination, or other adverse circumstances tied to their identity. Applicants must provide specific incidents, dates, contexts, and impacts.
**The 8(a) program continues to operate.** Set-asides continue. Sole-source authority continues. Existing 8(a) participants were not retroactively disqualified. New applications are subject to the new narrative-evidence requirement. SBA continues to process applications, including those from historically-presumed minority groups, on the basis of the submitted narrative evidence rather than racial classification alone.
**Litigation continues to evolve.** The ruling has prompted further legal challenges to other federal small-business set-aside programs (HUBZone, WOSB) and to state-level diverse contracting programs. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the federal small-business set-aside framework directly, but several pending cases ask similar questions.
What this means for diverse contractors
**For new 8(a) applicants:** Plan to write a substantive social-disadvantage narrative regardless of demographic background. SBA's narrative requirement asks for specific incidents of bias or discrimination, with dates, contexts, and concrete impacts on your business or career. Many applicants now hire attorneys or 8(a) consultants to draft the narrative ($2,000-$10,000 typical engagement). Generic statements about systemic disadvantage are not sufficient.
**For existing 8(a) participants:** No retroactive disqualification. Continued eligibility reviews (annual update + 3-year benefit review) follow current SBA guidance, which has incorporated the post-Ultima narrative requirement.
**For applicants who would have qualified under the prior presumption:** The same pathway exists — your narrative likely will draw on the same experiences that the presumption previously assumed. The change is procedural (you write it down) rather than substantive (your underlying experiences still qualify in most cases).
**For other federal programs:** HUBZone, WOSB, SDVOSB are not affected by Ultima — they don't use racial presumptions. State-level MBE programs and corporate (NMSDC, WBENC) certifications are also unaffected since they're not federal programs subject to the Fifth Amendment Equal Protection analysis.
Federal supplier diversity policy moves fast.
Browse the full policy tracker for executive orders, FAR clauses, court cases, and CFR amendments affecting how diverse business owners contract with the federal government.