Holman v. US Department of Agriculture

Stopping the USDA's Racial Discrimination

About the Case

As part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 signed by President Biden, Congress created a farm loan forgiveness program for non-white farmers. Under the program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture automatically forgave federal farm loans at 120 percent of the loan value unless the farmer is white. The federal government’s exclusion of white farmers is illegal and unconstitutional. That is why SLF and Mountain State Legal Foundation (MSLF) filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Rob Holman, a fourth-generation Tennessee farmer who is excluded from the program solely because of his skin color.

The federal court swiftly issued a preliminary injunction pausing the loan forgiveness program. Just one year later, Congress repealed the unconstitutional program. Mr. Holman is now seeking attorney’s fees but the lower courts are refusing to give them, claiming that the federal government’s actions were justifiable. He is now appealing his case to the United States Supreme Court.

Read More

Mr. Holman’s lawsuit challenges the provision in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 that provides automatic loan forgiveness of up to 120 percent of the loan amount for farmers and ranchers, unless they are white. It also challenges the unconstitutional program’s exclusion of white farmers from re-applying for government-backed loans, making the Biden Administration’s “relief” package doubly unconstitutional.

SLF and MSLF filed the lawsuit in the Western District of Tennessee on behalf of Robert Holman, a fourth-generation Tennessee farmer. Rob is a husband and a father of a young daughter. He farms with his father in Union City, Tennessee, where they have 2,200 combined acres to grow crops, mostly corn, and soybeans. Rob’s family’s primary income comes from farming.

To help farmers and ranchers weather the pandemic, Congress decided that it was going to forgive federal farm loans – erasing the full amount of the loan and sending the forgiven debtor 20 percent of the loan’s value in cash to cover any resulting income tax liability.

But unlike other farmers and ranchers, Rob does not qualify for federal farm loan forgiveness because of the color of his skin.

Discriminating on the basis of race is illegal and unconstitutional. The federal government cannot grant specific benefits based solely on race, regardless of policy motivations. This is especially true here where Congress stated that the goal of the $4 billion challenged race-based loan forgiveness had nothing to do with financial strain caused by Covid-19 pandemic, but instead was enacted to end “systemic racism.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the way to stop race-based discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. The federal government’s use of government-sponsored race discrimination as a tool to end “systemic racism” is patently unconstitutional. Both the federal court and Congress recognized this and stopped the program. Mr. Holman is entitled to attorney’s fees because he succeeded in stopping the program, so he is turning to the Supreme Court to request those fees.

Case Status

Petition

Court

United States Supreme Court

Why This Matters

When the government treats people differently because of the color of their skin, it engages in illegal and unconstitutional state-sanctioned discrimination.  And that is exactly what Congress and the USDA have done here when they excluded white farmers and ranchers from the loan forgiveness program.

The program was plainly unconstitutional, which is why both a federal court and Congress itself stopped the program. Now, Mr. Holman is entitled to attorney’s fees due to his successful litigation. If his request is denied, it would set a dangerous precedent that could incentivize the federal government to continue setting discriminatory policies against farmers and other Americans with no accountability.

Why This Matters

When the government treats people differently because of the color of their skin, it engages in illegal and unconstitutional state-sanctioned discrimination.  And that is exactly what Congress and the USDA have done here when they excluded white farmers and ranchers from the loan forgiveness program.

The program was plainly unconstitutional, which is why both a federal court and Congress itself stopped the program. Now, Mr. Holman is entitled to attorney’s fees due to his successful litigation. If his request is denied, it would set a dangerous precedent that could incentivize the federal government to continue setting discriminatory policies against farmers and other Americans with no accountability.

News Releases

Victory For Equality: Judge Denies Government Request to Delay Case Challenging Discriminatory Farm Loan Program

On August 2, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denied the government’s request to halt Southeastern Legal Foundation ‘s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality President Biden’s recently enacted program of forgiving loans for farmers based on the color of their skin. The ruling sets up this case to be the first to issue a final ruling declaring the farm loan program unconstitutional.

read more

Support our work

The Southeastern Legal Foundation is dedicated to defending liberty and Rebuilding the American Republic®. Since 1976, SLF has been going to court for the American people when the government overreaches and violates your constitutional rights.

We need your support to continue this fight. Please donate $25, $100, or more today to protect the next generation.

Share This