`
`Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 1 of 48 PageID 999Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 1 of 48 PageID 999
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`FORT WORTH DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`SID MILLER, et al.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TOM VILSACK, in his official capacity as
`SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-595-O
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 2 of 48 PageID 1000Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 2 of 48 PageID 1000
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`USDA’S FARM SERVICE AGENCY AND FARM LOAN PROGRAMS ...................... 3
`
`THE HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED
`FARMERS IN USDA PROGRAMS .................................................................................. 4
`
`III. CONGRESSIONAL RECOGNITION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SOCIALLY
`DISADVANTAGED FARMERS IN USDA PROGRAMS AND PAST FAILURES
`TO REMEDY ITS LINGERING EFFECTS ...................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Congress Concludes that Its Previous Efforts Failed To Address—and Indeed
`Perpetuated—the Disparities Caused By the Longstanding Discrimination
`Against Socially Disadvantaged Farmers. .............................................................. 8
`
`Congress Enacts Section 1005 To Remedy Discrimination in USDA
`Programs and Avoid Perpetuating Its Effects. ...................................................... 11
`
`IV.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY............................................................................................... 13
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 13
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Satisfied Any Of The Requirements For the Extraordinary Relief
`They Seek.......................................................................................................................... 13
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Legally Incorrect Conclusory Assertions Fail to Show Any
`Substantial Likelihood of Irreparable Harm. ........................................................ 14
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs Are Not Likely To Succeed On The Merits Of Their Claim. ............... 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Government’s Provision of Debt payments to SDFRs Serves
`Compelling Government Interests. ........................................................... 19
`
`The Government Had Strong Evidence that Remedial Action Was
`Necessary To Further Its Compelling Interests. ....................................... 20
`
`The Provision of Debt Relief to Minority Farmers Is Narrowly
`Tailored To Serve the Government’s Compelling Interests. .................... 29
`
`C.
`
`The Balance Of Equities And Public Interest Favor Defendant ........................... 33
`
`II.
`
`If The Court Concludes An Injunction Is Warranted—and It Is Not—Any Such
`Injunction Should Be Limited To Plaintiffs With Article III Standing. ........................... 36
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 38
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 3 of 48 PageID 1001Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 3 of 48 PageID 1001
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena,
`515 U.S. 200 (1995) .................................................................................................................. 17
`
`
`Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky. V. McCreary Cty., Ky.,
`354 F.3d 438 (6th Circ. 2003) ............................................................................................. 16, 17
`
`
`Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng.,
`546 U.S. 320 (2006) .................................................................................................................. 35
`
`
`Canal Auth. Of State of Fla. V. Callaway,
`489 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1974) ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`Cantu v. United States,
`565 F. App’x 7 (D.C. Cir. May 27, 2014) ................................................................................. 23
`
`
`Cherokee Pump & Equip. Inc. v. Aurora Pump,
`38 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................. 13, 14
`
`
`City of Chicago v. Barr,
`961 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................................... 37
`
`
`City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.,
`488 U.S. 469 (1989) ................................................................................................ 19, 20, 29, 33
`
`
`Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno,
`154 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................................... 17
`
`
`Contractors Ass’n of E. Pa., Inc. v. City of Phila.,
`6 F.3d 990 (3d Cir. 1993) .......................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`Dean v. City of Shreveport,
`438 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2006) ......................................................................................... 19, 20, 21
`
`
`Elrod v. Burns,
`427 U.S. 347 (1976) .................................................................................................................. 16
`
`
`Enter. Int'l, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana,
`762 F.2d 464 (5th Cir. 1985) ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 4 of 48 PageID 1002Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 4 of 48 PageID 1002
`
`Fisher v. U. of Tex.,
`136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016) .............................................................................................................. 31
`
`
`Fullilove v. Klutznick,
`448 U.S. 448 (1980) .................................................................................................................. 31
`
`
`Garcia v. Johanns,
`444 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Gill v. Whitford,
`138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) .............................................................................................................. 36
`
`
`Grutter v. Bollinger,
`539 U.S. 306 (2003) ............................................................................................................ 18, 29
`
`
`Humana Ins. Co. v. Tenet Health Sys.,
`No. 3:16-CV-2919-B, 2016 WL 6893629 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2016) ..................................... 14
`
`
`In re Black Farmer, Discrimination Litig., (Pigford II),
`856 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011) .................................................................................... 5, 22, 23
`
`
`Loc. 28 of Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n v. EEOC,
`478 U.S. 421 (1986) .................................................................................................................. 32
`
`
`Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc.,
`512 U.S. 753 (1994) .................................................................................................................. 36
`
`
`Maryland v. King,
`567 U.S. 1301 (2012) .......................................................................................................... 33, 34
`
`
`Morgan v. Fletcher,
`518 F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1975) ..................................................................................................... 17
`
`
`Nken v. Holder,
`556 U.S. 418 (2009) ............................................................................................................ 14, 33
`
`
`Pigford v. Glickman, (Pigford I),
`185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1999) .................................................................................................... 23
`
`
`Rothe Dev. Corp. v. Dep't of Def.,
`545 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 21
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 5 of 48 PageID 1003Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 5 of 48 PageID 1003
`
`Sessions v. Morales-Santana,
`137 S. Ct. 1678 (2017) .............................................................................................................. 35
`
`
`Tate v. Am. Tugs, Inc.,
`634 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1981) ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`Trump v. Hawaii,
`138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) .............................................................................................................. 37
`
`
`United States v. Paradise,
`480 U.S. 149 (1987) ................................................................................................ 19, 29, 31, 32
`
`
`Washington v. Trump,
`2017 WL 4857088 (W.D. Wash Oct. 27, 2017) ....................................................................... 15
`
`
`W. H. Scott Const. Co. v. City of Jackson, Miss.,
`199 F.3d 206, 217 (5th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................................ 19
`
`
`White v. Carlucci,
`862 F.2d 1209 (5th Cir. 1989) ............................................................................................. 14, 17
`
`
`Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ.,
`476 U.S. 267 (1986) .................................................................................................................. 18
`
`Statutes
`
`7 USC §§ 1921 et seq...................................................................................................................... 3
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` USC § 1923 .................................................................................................................................. 4
`
` USC § 1942 .................................................................................................................................. 4
`
` USC § 1963 .................................................................................................................................. 4
`
` USC § 2279 .......................................................................................................................... 12, 13
`
` 7
`
` USC § 6932 .................................................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`16 USC § 590h ................................................................................................................................ 4
`
`American Rescue Plan, § 1005 ........................................................................................ 12, 15, 36
`
`Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-291 (2010) ...................................................... 23
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 6 of 48 PageID 1004Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 6 of 48 PageID 1004
`
`Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-246, § 14012 (2008) ................. 24
`
`Pub. L. No. 117-2 (2021) .............................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`Regulations
`
`7 CFR § 2.42 ................................................................................................................................... 3
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` CFR § 764.351 ............................................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`66 FR 21617-01 (Apr. 30, 2001) .................................................................................................. 12
`
`74 FR 31571 (July 2, 2009) .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`75 FR 27615 (May 14, 2010) ........................................................................................................ 12
`
`
`Legislative Materials
`
`167 Cong. Rec. H735 (daily ed. Feb. 26, 2021) .................................................................... passim
`
`167 Cong. Rec. S.1217 (daily ed. Mar. 5, 2021) ................................................................... passim
`
`H.R. No. 117-7 (2021) ................................................................................................ 11, 20, 27, 28
`
`Hr’g on State of Black Farmers, 2021 WL 1154123 (2021) (John Boyd, Nat’l Black Farmers
`Ass’n) (March 25, 2021) ........................................................................................................... 25
`
`House Ag. Comm. Hr’g on U.S. Ag. Policy and the 2012 Farm Bill
` (Apr. 21, 2010) ........................................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`House Ag. Comm. Hr’g on USDA Oversight (July 22, 2015) ....................................................... 7
`
`Hr’g on Mgmt. of Civil Rights at the USDA before the House Subcomm. on Gov’t Mgmt.,
`Org., and Procurement, Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 110th Cong. 137 (2008) ...... 7
`
`v
`
` CFR § 762.101 ............................................................................................................................. 4
`
` CFR § 762.129 ............................................................................................................................. 4
`
` CFR § 764.151 ............................................................................................................................. 4
`
` CFR § 764.251 ............................................................................................................................. 4
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 7 of 48 PageID 1005Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 7 of 48 PageID 1005
`
`
`Hr’g on the Decline of Minority Farming in the United States, Comm. on Gov’t Ops., U.S.
`House of Reps. (1990) ............................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`Hr’g on the USDA’s Civil Rights Prog. for Farm Prog. Participants before House Subcomm.,
`Dep’t Ops., Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, Comm. on Agric., 107th Cong. (2002)
` (2002 Civil Rights Hr’g) ....................................................................................................... 5, 6
`
`
`Hr’g on State of Black Farmers, 2021 WL 1154123 (2021) (John Boyd, Nat’l Black Farmers
`Ass’n) (March 25, 2021) ........................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`Hr’g on USDA’s Civil Rights Programs and Responsibilities before the House Subcomm. on
`Dep’t Ops., Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, Comm. on Agric., 106th Cong. (1999) ........... 6
`
`
`Hr’g to Review Availability of Credit in Rural America before the House Subcomm. on
`Conserv., Credit, Energy, and Research, Comm. on Ag., 110th Cong. 8 (2007) ....................... 7
`
`
`Hr’g to Review the USDA’s Farm Loan Programs before the Senate Comm. on Ag., Nutrition,
`and Forestry, 109th Cong. (2006) ........................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`
`Opening Stmt. of Thomas J. Vilsack before House Comm. on Ag. (Vilsack Stmt.),
`https://perma.cc/3LWV-4SMF ...................................................................................... 19, 20, 30
`
`
`Review of the Off. of the Assistant Sec’y for Civil Rights, Hr’g before the House Subcomm. On
`Nutrition, Oversight, and Dep’t Ops., Comm. on Ag., 116th Cong. 25, 9 (2019) (2019 Civil
`Rights Hr’g) .................................................................................................................... 9, 26, 30
`
`
`S. 278, 117th Cong. (2021) ....................................................................................................... 7, 11
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Civil Rights at the USDA - A Report by the Civil Rights Action Team (CRAT) (1997)
`(CRAT Rep.) ......................................................................................................................... 5, 22
`
`
`Congressional Research Service (CRS), Farm Serv. Agency Comms.: In Brief
`
`(Jan. 29, 2021), (FSA Comms.) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`COVID-19 Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, CDC (Dec. 10, 2020),
`https://perma.cc/DJ3J-22DU ..................................................................................................... 27
`
`
`David Zucchino, Sowing Hope, Harvesting Bitterness, LA Times (Mar. 23, 2012),
`https://perma.cc/V8TZ-C6RZ ................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 8 of 48 PageID 1006Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 8 of 48 PageID 1006
`
`D.J. Miller & Associates, report prepared for the USDA FSA (1996); USDA:
`Problems in Processing Discrim. Compls., GAO (2002) .......................................................... 11
`
`
`D.J. Miller, Disparity Study: Producer Participation and EEO Compl. Process Study ................ 11
`
`Equal Opportunity in Farm Progs., An Appraisal of Servs. Rendered by Agencies of the
`USDA, USCCR (1965), https://perma.cc/34HP-5V9P ............................................................. 22
`
`
`Farm Service Agency Committees: In Brief (Updated Jan. 29, 2021),
` https://perma.cc/HA3L-PDPG ................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Fed’n of S. Coops/Land Assist. Fund, Ann. Rep. 4 (2020),
`https://perma.cc/94PY-HSM6 .................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`GAO-19-464, Indian Issues: Ag’l Credit Needs and Barriers to Lending on Tribal Lands
` (2019), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-464.pdf ..................................................... 9, 26, 32
`
`
`GAO-19-539, Agric. Lending: Info. on Credit & Outreach to [SDFRs]
`
`Is Limited (2019), https://perma.cc/5RD6-24VH .......................................................... 9, 26, 32
`
`GAO-21-399T, Fin. Servs.: Fair Lending, Access, & Retirement Sec. (2021),
`https://perma.cc/3CWQ-B959 ............................................................................................... 6, 27
`
`
`GAO, USDA: Problems in ProcessingDiscrim. Compls. ............................................................. 11
`
`History and Mission, FARM SERVICE AGENCY, https://perma.cc/B47X-MTCL. ............................ 4
`
`J. Hayes, USDA Data: Nearly All Pandemic Bailout Funds Went to White Farmers, Envir’l
`Working Group (EWG) (Feb. 18, 2021), https://perma.cc/PVZ7-QMFD. ......................... 10, 32
`
`
`Jackson Lewis LLP, “Civil Rights Assessment” Final Report
`
`(Mar. 31, 2011) (JL Report,) https://perma.cc/8X6Q-GZ5V ................................... 6, 24, 25, 32
`
`L. Minkoff-Zern & S. Sloat, A New Era of Civil Rights?Latino Immigrant Farmers and
`Exclusion at the [USDA], AG. & HUMAN VALUES (2017) .................................................. 25, 26
`
`
`M. Gordon, “Revolution is Based on Land: Wealth Denied via Black Farmland Ownership
`Loss” (Dec. 17, 2018) (M.A. thesis, Tufts University), https://perma.cc/YJ9U-KC7E) ........... 8
`
`
`N. Rosenberg, USDA Gave Almost 100 Percent of Trump’s Trade War Bailout to White
` Farmers, Farm Bill Law Enterprise, https://perma.cc/T7SY-TZQM ...................................... 10
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 9 of 48 PageID 1007Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 9 of 48 PageID 1007
`
`Nat’l Young Farmers Coal., Cal. Young Farmers Rep. (Apr. 2019),
` https://perma.cc/PEY5-Z253 ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA), https://perma.cc/A35E-UANV ................................ 12, 31
`
`U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), The Decline of Black Farming in
`America (1982) (1982 Rep.), https://perma.cc/CFE9-ANJ3 ....................................... 5, 6, 21, 22
`
`
`USDA Announces [CFAP], USDA (Apr. 17, 2021), https://perma.cc/B7N9-PTRE ................... 10
`
` USDA, Civil Rights at the [USDA] (Feb. 1997), https://perma.cc/5DNF-PFJY .......................... 5
`
`USDA, Fact Sheet: [USDA] Agricultural Provision in H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan
`(Mar. 10, 2021), https://perma.cc/R69N-AL5K ........................................................................ 31
`
`
`USDA OIG, Rep. for the Secretary on Civil Rights Issues – Phase I, (1997),
` https://perma.cc/NK6B-W2CL ............................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`USDA: Recommendations and Options to Address Mgmt. Deficiencies in the Off. of the
`Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, GAO (2008) , https://perma.cc/YW73-83WE ............... 11
`
`
`USDA, Who Owns the Land? Agricultural Land Ownership by Race/Ethnicity, Rural America
`(2002), https://perma.cc/FG7J-YJEQ .......................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 10 of 48 PageID 1008Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 10 of 48 PageID 1008
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In the midst of a global pandemic, Congress enacted Section 1005 of the American Rescue
`
`
`
`Plan Act (ARPA) to alleviate the debt of certain socially disadvantaged farmers at a time of acute
`
`need. Congress did so based on strong evidence that socially disadvantaged farmers had been
`
`subject to decades of discrimination in U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs, such
`
`that when COVID-19 hit, they sat on the brink of foreclosure at higher rates than other farmers.
`
`Congress also relied on reporting that, despite those farmers’ urgent need for relief, the vast
`
`majority of recent agricultural subsidies and pandemic relief did not reach socially disadvantaged
`
`farmers. Plaintiffs, five farmers who do not allege that they have been subject to USDA
`
`discrimination or left out of prior funding, ask the Court to preliminarily enjoin USDA’s
`
`implementation of Section 1005, arguing that it is unconstitutional for Congress to provide such
`
`targeted assistance. Plaintiffs’ six-page motion—which is based on incorrect theories of
`
`irreparable harm and contains virtually no legal analysis—falls far short of satisfying the
`
`demanding standard for showing entitlement to such an extraordinary form of relief.
`
`
`
`First and foremost, Plaintiffs fail to show a substantial likelihood that they would suffer
`
`irreparable harm unless a preliminary injunction is issued that would further delay the provision
`
`of debt relief to minority farmers under Section 1005.1 Their arguments on this point are legally
`
`and factually erroneous. Plaintiffs argue that an injunction is necessary to prevent distribution of
`
`
`1 On June 10, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted a request
`for a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining Defendants from administering any loan
`payments under “Section 1005 until the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary
`injunction.” See Order, Faust v. Vilsack, No. 21-548 (June 10, 2021), ECF Nos. 21, 22. Consistent
`with the Order, USDA is not issuing any loan payments under Section 1005 until the Court rules
`on the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion in that case, on which briefing is set to conclude
`by June 21, 2021. Given that the relief Plaintiffs seek in this motion—to halt the provision of debt
`relief to minority farmers under Section 1005—has been granted temporarily by another court,
`Defendant focuses the arguments herein on whether Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements for
`a further injunction after the TRO in Faust expires.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 11 of 48 PageID 1009Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 11 of 48 PageID 1009
`
`all Section 1005 funds before they have an opportunity to prove that they, too, are entitled to that
`
`relief. But Congress did not provide a finite sum for debt relief; rather, it expressly appropriated
`
`“such sums as may be necessary, to remain available until expended,” to pay off certain direct or
`
`guaranteed USDA farm loans held by eligible socially disadvantaged farmers. Thus, even if this
`
`Court were later to conclude that there were some legal defect (constitutional or otherwise) in the
`
`criteria employed by USDA to determine eligibility for debt relief, the Court could fashion an
`
`appropriate remedy at that juncture, without any risk of appropriated funds being depleted in the
`
`meantime. Because Plaintiffs provide no irreparable-harm allegations that are founded in law or
`
`fact, they fail to satisfy this necessary condition for obtaining preliminary relief. The Court should
`
`deny Plaintiffs’ motion on this basis alone.
`
`Plaintiffs fare no better on the remaining preliminary injunction factors. As to the merits
`
`of their constitutional claim, Plaintiffs simply assert that Congress provided debt relief to minority
`
`farmers without any justification. They are wrong. Congress concluded that paying off minority
`
`farmers’ qualifying USDA loans was necessary to further its interests in remedying well-
`
`documented, long-standing racial discrimination in USDA loan programs and to ensure that its
`
`pandemic relief efforts did not perpetuate the effects of that discrimination. The Supreme Court
`
`has recognized that the Government can use race-conscious measures to further exactly those types
`
`of compelling interests. Plaintiffs’ contention that the Government has no compelling interest in
`
`curing societal discrimination generally misses the mark. Congress authorized debt relief to
`
`remedy discrimination specific to USDA loan programs, the effects of which placed minority
`
`farmers in a particularly precarious position even before the pandemic hit—all the more so a year
`
`into it. And it provided for these one-time, emergency debt payments after reviewing reporting
`
`that its prior race-neutral forms of agricultural funding and relief immediately preceding and
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 12 of 48 PageID 1010Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 12 of 48 PageID 1010
`
`during the pandemic largely failed to reach minority farmers—thereby perpetuating the effect of
`
`discrimination against them. Congress has compelling interests in remedying those harms, and
`
`Plaintiffs cannot show otherwise.
`
`On the final preliminary injunction factors, Plaintiffs utterly fail to show the balance of
`
`harms and public interest weigh in their favor. As stated, Plaintiffs do not show any irreparable
`
`harm absent a preliminary injunction at all—much less one that outweighs the substantial harm to
`
`the public if the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request and grants an injunction that would further delay
`
`payments to minority farmers upon the expiration of the TRO in Faust. Congress reasonably
`
`determined that minority farmers were in need of timely debt relief after decades of USDA
`
`discrimination and in the midst of a pandemic that disproportionately affected them. The
`
`conclusory and unsupported allegations of harm raised by these five Plaintiffs—at least one of
`
`whom does not even have a qualifying loan for purposes of Section 1005—should not be permitted
`
`to override Congress’s determination and further delay the distribution of payments to their fellow
`
`Americans in need. Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied.
`
`BACKGROUND
`USDA’S FARM SERVICE AGENCY AND FARM LOAN PROGRAMS
`
`I.
`
`USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers a variety of farm credit and benefit
`
`programs. See Consol. Farm and Rural Dev. Act, 7 USC §§ 1921, et seq.; 7 CFR § 2.42(a)(28).
`
`Like its predecessor the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), FSA makes credit available to
`
`farmers who cannot obtain it from commercial institutions, 7 USC § 6932(b), including by making
`
`loans directly to farmers, see id., and guaranteeing loans of commercial lenders up to 95%, 7 CFR
`
`§ 762.129, thereby expanding opportunities for farmers and ranchers, id. § 762.101.2 These loans
`
`
`2 For ease of reference, Defendants use “farmers” to include “farmers and ranchers.”
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 13 of 48 PageID 1011Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 13 of 48 PageID 1011
`
`may assist farmers with buying or improving farm property, id. § 764.151 (“farm ownership”
`
`loans), provide credit and management assistance to help farmers run their farms, id. § 764.251
`
`(“operating” loans), or help farmers resume operations after a disaster, id. § 764.351 (“emergency”
`
`loans). See 7 USC §§ 1923, 1942, 1963.
`
`Local committees have been key to the administration of USDA loan programs, see 16
`
`USC § 590h(b)(5), though their structure and role in those programs have changed, see
`
`Congressional Research Service (CRS), FSA Comms.: In Brief (Jan. 29, 2021) (FSA Comms.).3
`
`In 2002 and 2008, Congress adopted measures to ensure minority representation on local
`
`committees. Id at 2-3. And though county committees used to work with individuals to complete
`
`loan applications, make decisions about borrower eligibility and status, and determine loan
`
`amounts, Garcia v. Johanns, 444 F.3d 625, 628–29 (D.C. Cir. 2006), today they are uninvolved in
`
`the loan approval process, see FSA Comms. 3. Now, they generally advise USDA loan officers
`
`on regional issues, conduct outreach to farmers, provide education and training, and ensure
`
`Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers (SDFRs)4 are fairly represented. See id.
`
`II.
`
`AGAINST
`DISCRIMINATION
`OF
`HISTORY
`THE
`DISADVANTAGED FARMERS IN USDA PROGRAMS
`
`SOCIALLY
`
`Although USDA aims to serve all farmers equitably,5 decades of evidence shows that not
`
`all USDA stakeholders have benefitted equally from its services—particularly its farm loan
`
`services. See infra Argument (Arg.) II.B. In fact, the evidence indicates just the opposite: that
`
`throughout USDA’s history and up to present day, minority farmers have been “hurt” more than
`
`helped due to discrimination in USDA’s farm loan programs. Civil Rights at the [USDA]—A
`
`
`3 Available at https://perma.cc/HA3L-PDPG.
`4 As explained below, USDA defines SDFRs to include certain racial and ethnics minorities;
`herein, Defendants refer to SDFRs and minority farmers interchangeably.
`5 History and Mission, FARM SERVICE AGENCY, https://perma.cc/B47X-MTCL.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 14 of 48 PageID 1012Case 4:21-cv-00595-O Document 27 Filed 06/11/21 Page 14 of 48 PageID 1012
`
`Report by the Civil Rights Action Team (CRAT) 6 (1997) (CRAT Rep.)6; see also Arg. II.B.
`
`Minority farmers have long experienced inequities in FSA’s administration of farm loans,
`
`including with respect to loan approval rates, amounts, and terms. See U.S. Commission on Civil
`
`Rights (USCCR), The Decline of Black Farming in America 84-85(1982) (1982 Rep.)7 (discussing
`
`complaints of loan amounts being reduced or repayment schedules “accelerated without
`
`explanation”); see also CRAT Rep. 16 (discussing complaints of loans being “arbitrarily reduced”
`
`or not arriving as promised); Hr’g on the USDA’s Civil Rights Prog. for Farm Prog. Participants
`
`before House Subcomm., Dep’t Ops., Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, Comm. on Ag., 107th
`
`Cong. 23, 16-2