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 is automatically forgiving 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT HOLMAN, Plaintiff,
VS.
THOMAS J. VILSACK, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, and ZACH
DUCHENEAUX, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Farm Service
Agency, Defendants.
No. 21-1085-STA-jay
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Summary and Conclusion
The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on his claim that Section 1005 violates his right to equal protection under the law. Absent action by the Court, socially disadvantaged farmers will obtain debt relief, while Plaintiff will suffer the irreparable harm of being excluded from that program solely on the basis of his race. Despite the arguments of Defendants, the Court cannot re-write Section 1005 and order that Plaintiff receive equivalent relief. While an injunction may harm socially disadvantaged farmers, the Court has balanced the equities and determines that they favor enjoining Section 1005. The Court agrees with Judge Howard’s reasoning that “the remedy chosen and provided in Section 1005 appears to fall well short of the delicate balance accomplished when a legislative enactment employs race in a narrowly tailored manner to address a specific compelling governmental interest.” Wynn, 2021 WL 2580678, at *17.
Although
this Court has reservations about issuing a nationwide injunction, in this type
of case such an injunction is warranted.19 As explained by Judge Howard,
Here,
despite exploring any possible more narrow option, the Court cannot identify
any relief short of enjoining the distribution of Section 1005’s payments and
debt relief that will maintain the status quo and provide Plaintiff the opportunity
to obtain any relief at all. As noted by the Supreme Court, “[o]nce a constitutional
violation is found, a federal court is required to tailor the scope of the
remedy to fit the nature and extent of the constitutional violation.” Dayton Bd. of Ed. v.
Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 420, 97 S. Ct. 2766, 53
L.Ed.2d 851 (1977) (internal
quotations and citations omitted); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S.
682, 702, 99 S. Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979) (noting, in the context of a nationwide
class action, “the scope of injunctive relief is dictated by the extent of the
violation established, not by the geographical extent of the plaintiff class.”). Plaintiff
has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that Section 1005
is unconstitutional and, if implemented, would deprive him of his right to equal
protection under the law. The implementation of Section 1005 will be swift and
irreversible, meaning the only way to avoid Plaintiff’s irreparable harm is to enjoin
the program. The Court can envision no other remedy that will prevent the likely
violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional right which absent an injunction cannot be remedied in this action.
Wynn, 2021 WL 2580678, at *17 (footnotes omitted). See also Faust at *5 (quoting City of Chicago v. Barr, 961 F.3d 882, 916–17 (7th Cir. 2020) (“While universal
injunctions are rare, they
‘can be necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs, to protect
similarly-situated nonparties,
and to avoid the chaos and confusion that comes from a patchwork of
injunctions.’”)) Faust also found that a nation-wide injunction was appropriate
because “Defendants’ proposal to set
aside funds to pay off any of Plaintiffs’ qualified loans is unworkable. If the
USDA forgave Plaintiffs’
loans, it would be required to forgive every farmer’s loan, since the only
criteria for loan
forgiveness is the applicant’s race.”20
Id.
Therefore, the only way to preserve the
status quo is for the Court to issue a nationwide
injunction.
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED, and Defendants
are hereby enjoined from implementing Section 1005. Defendants Thomas J. Vilsack,
in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and Zach Ducheneaux,
in his official
capacity as Administrator, Farm Service Agency, their agents, employees, and
all others acting
in concert with them, who receive actual notice of this Order by personal
service or otherwise,
are immediately enjoined from issuing any payments, loan assistance, or debt
relief pursuant
to Section 1005(a)(2) of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 until further
orders of the
Court.
The
government has not opposed Plaintiff’s request that the Court waive the bond requirement. Therefore, Plaintiff will
not be required to post a bond or other security
No
later than fourteen (14) days from the entry of this order, the parties must
confer and submit
to the undersigned Judge’s ECF inbox a proposed scheduling order in word
processing format.
A scheduling conference will be set by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
