The End of Box-Checking: Merit Returns to Federal Hiring After 40-Year Ban

What Happened

For the first time in four decades, the federal government can judge job applicants by what they know rather than who they are.

A D.C. federal judge has officially ended a 1981 consent decree tied to Luevano v. Ezell, a case that forced the government to abandon standardized testing for civil service jobs. The decision was based on the grounds that testing produced racial disparities in outcomes.

That decree went on to shape how the federal workforce was built for over 40 years. Federal agencies could no longer use general exams to assess aptitude. Instead, they relied on “self-assessments,” vague resume filters, and ambiguous hiring preferences. Many of those were tied to diversity goals and quotas.

But now, the hiring process has been altered. Agencies can once again screen applicants with exams that test real skills and knowledge. In short, they can hire based on merit.

Why It Matters

A decision handed down like this strikes at the heart of how America’s largest employer fills its ranks. For years, critics of the federal hiring process have argued that it was broken, bloated, political, and indifferent to actual performance. The consent decree banned more than performance tests. It effectively reinforced identity-based hiring into the federal workforce.

I've just identified the single crypto that's positioned to explode from J.P. Morgan and BlackRock's massive blockchain initiative.

This isn't speculation—the world's largest financial institutions are actively moving real-world assets onto the blockchain RIGHT NOW.

When trillions in assets migrate to this specific protocol, early investors could see gains of 10X, 50X, or potentially even 150X+:

Discover our #1 coin for Summer 2025 now (limited window of opportunity).

The window for early positioning is closing fast as institutional money floods in.

What replaced merit-based testing was a system that favored credentialism and compliance over competence. College degrees became proxy measures for ability. Demographic boxes became decision points. Agencies were under pressure to hire in ways that aligned with political and legal interpretations of “equity,” as opposed to excellence.

The resulting effect was a government workforce that became astronomically harder to fire underperforming and problem employees. It became slower to perform and insulated from public accountability.

By getting rid of the consent decree, the court has reopened the door to competitive hiring. That means moving forward, there will be more skills-based exams and job-related testing. Hiring pipelines will be built around what someone can actually do.

How It Affects Readers

If you’ve ever felt shut out of a government job because you didn’t have the “right” resume or didn’t attend the “right” school, or any other variation of checking the wrong type of box, then this ruling is good news.

For taxpayers frustrated with delays, inefficiency, or unaccountable federal workers, this should be consequential, too. Instead of adding new programs and filling them with employees hired via these problematic practices, the problem is getting fixed at the source. That source is who gets hired, and perhaps most importantly, why.

The return of merit means job seekers can compete based on ability, not paperwork. It means fewer mystery hires and more people who know what they’re doing.

It’s unlikely for this change to roll out overnight, given the slow nature of bureaucracies and the many entrenched interests that will resist testing that might disrupt existing hiring patterns. But for the first time in 40 years, the federal government has permission to prioritize competence again. That’s more than a minor policy tweak. It’s a cultural correction.