Based on the court’s decision and what I know about EUPConnect’s focus on community capacity, digital inclusion, schools, libraries, and rural broadband adoption, I would view this as an opportunity to reframe rather than retreat.
- Reposition the MITTEN grant around the strongest surviving categories The court specifically found that the Digital Equity Act can continue to support funding for populations such as: Rural residents Older adults People with disabilities Veterans Individuals with language barriers Low-income households Digital skills and adoption challenges generally while removing race and ethnicity as grant-selection factors. 1 For the EUP, this is actually a strong position because many of the region’s needs already fit these categories: Rural isolation Aging populations Workforce transition needs School and family digital literacy Telehealth access Device and adoption support
- Shift from “digital equity” language to “digital opportunity” The term “digital equity” has become politically contentious because of the federal dispute that led to this lawsuit. The underlying activities remain valuable. For EUPConnect, I would emphasize: Digital opportunity Community capacity Broadband adoption Workforce readiness Rural prosperity Lifelong learning Community resilience Those outcomes align with the surviving portions of the Act and are easier to defend across political audiences.
- Double down on the Digital Navigator model One of the central issues in the case involved NDIA’s Digital Navigator work. The court did not criticize digital navigators themselves. It criticized only the race-based component of the statutory framework. 1 For the MITTEN grant, that suggests continuing to support: Library-based assistance School-based assistance Senior support programs Workforce digital coaching Small business technical assistance These can all be justified through rural, aging, workforce, disability, and economic-development outcomes.
- Build a stronger evidence framework This is especially important for EUPConnect. Instead of describing target populations demographically, document measurable barriers: Broadband adoption rates Device availability Digital skills gaps Telehealth utilization Employment outcomes Educational participation AI literacy readiness The stronger the evidence, the easier it becomes to show the project addresses documented needs regardless of political changes.
- Align with your existing “Power of Yet” and community-capacity work You have consistently framed regional development around community capacity rather than deficiency. This ruling actually supports that narrative. Instead of saying:
“We are serving a demographic group.”
You can say:
“We are expanding the capacity of communities that have not yet achieved full participation in the digital economy.”
That emphasizes: Readiness Skills Infrastructure Local leadership Community self-determination which are likely to remain fundable regardless of future federal adjustments.
- Prepare for funding reactivation If Michigan’s Digital Equity funding resumes under the court’s severability framework, organizations that already have projects structured around: Rural households Seniors Veterans Disabilities Digital literacy Workforce development may be positioned to move quickly. The court expressly concluded that the Digital Equity Act can continue functioning after removal of the race-based provision. 1 Strategic recommendation for EUPConnect If I were advising EUPConnect today, I would make the centerpiece of the MITTEN grant:
Rural Digital Opportunity and Community Capacity Building
supported through: Digital navigators AI literacy Workforce skills Telehealth enablement School and family engagement Library partnerships Community data collection Broadband adoption measurement That approach remains fully aligned with the court’s reasoning, aligns with EUPConnect’s mission, and leverages the Upper Peninsula’s strongest case for continued federal and state support. 1