BALTIMORE – On August 1, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs in Taylor v. U.S. Department of Education, vacating a decision by Secretary of Education Linda McMahon that would have significantly weakened the Randolph-Sheppard Act, a law that grants priority to blind vendors in the operation of vending facilities on federal government property, and that would have displaced and jeopardized the livelihoods of dozens of blind vendors who currently operate dining facilities at U.S. Army bases nationwide. On December 23, 2025, Secretary McMahon, responding to a request from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, issued a decision waiving the Randolph-Sheppard Act's priority for blind vendors at all Army dining facilities nationwide. The decision, which was issued without prior public notice and without opportunity for public comment, was challenged in Taylor by four blind vendors, the National Association of Blind Merchants, and the National Federation of the Blind, all represented by Brown, Goldstein & Levy partners Andrew D. Freeman, Neel K. Lalchandani, and Joshua N. Auerbach.

Congress originally enacted the Randolph-Sheppard Act in 1936for the purposes of “providing blind persons with remunerative employment” and “enlarging economic opportunities for the blind,” and its “priority” for blind vendors extends to the operation of federal cafeterias and dining halls. The Act has been described by the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare as “one of the most practical and effective employment opportunity programs ever enacted by Congress.” For decades, blind vendors have successfully operated dining facilities at military installations nationwide and have been recognized for their excellent performance.  Today, blind vendors operate at least two dozen Army dining facilities, as well as numerous other dining facilities serving other branches of the military.

The Randolph-Sheppard Act authorizes the Secretary of Education to approve a request from a federal agency that manages federal property for a “limitation” on the “placement or operation of a vending facility.” However, prior to Secretary McMahon’s decision in December 2025, no request for a “limitation” had ever been granted. Moreover, on the rare prior occasions when federal agencies requested that the Secretary approve such a “limitation,” the Department gave notice to the public that it was considering the request and invited public comment.

In Taylor, the plaintiffs asserted that the Secretary’s action was unlawful for three reasons:  (1) that the Secretary had failed to adhere to procedural requirements for the granting of a “limitation” established both in the Randolph-Sheppard Act itself and in the Department of Education’s own internal procedures; (2) that the Secretary, in granting a waiver of all of the Act’s requirements in their application to dozens of Army dining facilities nationwide, exceeded her authority under the Act, which authorizes her only to approve a “limitation on the placement or operation of a vending facility”; and (3) that the decision was arbitrary and capricious, including for the reasons that it relied on anecdotal and often erroneous information about a handful of Army dining facility contracts to justify a broad waiver applicable to dozens of dining facilities nationwide.  

The District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. In his opinion, Chief Judge George L. Russell III concluded that the Secretary failed to adhere to Randolph-Sheppard Act’s procedural requirement that she publish supporting documentation for her decision, and that the Secretary had also failed to follow the notice-and-comment process that the Department of Educationhad previously adopted for purposes of consideration of a request for a “limitation” under the Act. Although the court resolved the case on procedural grounds, Chief Judge Russell observed that, absent those procedural deficiencies, he would have found the Secretary's decision arbitrary and capricious in several respects. The court also rejected the Department of Education's argument that the plaintiffs were required to pursuetheir claims through arbitration before they could file suit.

“This decision is a victory for every blind entrepreneur who has invested years of hard work into building a successful business through the Randolph-Sheppard Act," said Nicholas P. Gacos, President of the National Association of Blind Merchants. "The court's ruling upholds the promises Congress made when it enacted this law in 1936: to create meaningful opportunities for blind entrepreneurs to achieve economic independence through their own work. It preserves those opportunities not only for the entrepreneurs currently serving on Army installations, but for the next generation of blind vendors who deserve the same chance to thrive. The National Association of Blind Merchants will continue working alongside our partners to protect and strengthen this vital program.”

“This ruling affirms what blind entrepreneurs and the organized blind movement have said from the beginning: the federal government cannot discard nearly ninety years of congressional commitment to blind entrepreneurs through a closed process built on incomplete and inaccurate information," said Mark A. Riccobono, President of the National Federation of the Blind. "The Randolph-Sheppard Act is not a special favor; it is a proven pathway to competitive employment, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunity. We will continue to defend this priority and work with state and federal partners to strengthen the program so blind vendors can keep serving our nation with excellence.”

“The court’s decision safeguards far more than a statutory priority—it protects the livelihoods, independence, and dignity of blind entrepreneurs across the country,” said Neel K. Lalchandani, a partner at Brown, Goldstein & Levy. “Blind vendors have spent decades proving their ability to successfully operate Army dining facilities, and this case was about ensuring that these entrepreneurs receive the opportunities Congress promised them nearly ninety years ago.”