Plaintiff groups seek stay and preliminary ruling to stop potential grantees from facing vague anti-DEI terms and serious threats for failure to comply
Five nonprofit organizations working to build a more just food system filed suit late yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to challenge unlawful terms and conditions that USDA is imposing on new grants. These terms and conditions substantially restrict grantees’ speech and programming in support of diversity and equity, bar using grant funding on whatever the administration says is “promoting gender ideology”, and limit grantees’ work in support of immigrants.
The plaintiffs – Agroecology Commons, Oregon Farm Corps, Syracuse-Onondaga Food Systems Alliance (SOFSA), Third Sector New England, and the Washington Farmland Trust – will be asking the court to put the new terms and conditions on hold while the case proceeds. Plaintiffs are represented by Public Citizen Litigation Group, Earthjustice, and FarmSTAND.
The new terms and conditions require USDA grantees to agree not to promote “unlawful DEI” or “gender ideology” or to use grant funding to create “incentives for illegal immigration by demonstrating the availability of public benefits.” The terms even attempt to control the grantees’ work and speech outside of the grant, demanding they not “operate any programs that advance or promote Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws.”
These terms put the plaintiffs in this case in a high-stakes bind: If the Trump Administration deems them to have violated the terms and conditions – despite the vagueness and otherwise unlawfulness of the terms – they might not just lose future payments of the grant. The new terms threaten civil and criminal liability for making supposed false claims.
These terms have already forced the plaintiff organizations filing this case to substantially reorient their work. Two plaintiff groups have decided that they cannot accept any funds from USDA unless the court blocks these terms and conditions from being applied to them, as they fear serious consequences if the Trump Administration decides that they are not complying with grant terms. The effects of that decision are substantial: plaintiff Washington Farmland Trust, for instance, will have to decline $676,000 in funding that could be going to critical support for farmers unless the court blocks these terms and conditions from being applied to them.
“Farmers need land in order to grow and raise our food. Washington Farmland Trust’s Farm to Farmer program helps farmers access the land, resources, and capital they need to be successful,” said Melissa Campbell, Executive Director of Washington Farmland Trust. “This grant would have allowed us to grow the infrastructure of this critical program to serve more farmers. Instead, we’re faced with the impossible choice of pulling back from our mission-critical work or losing out on catalytic funding that would help us better serve our communities. If the court blocks the USDA’s problematic terms, farmers will be able to receive the essential support they need to continue to grow food for us all.”
“Organizations like the plaintiffs do essential work to fight hunger, protect the environment, and ensure that communities across the country have access to healthy, local food,” said Stephanie Garlock, attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group and lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “They should not have to choose between continuing that work and submitting to the Trump Administration’s ideological speech code on issues of public policy.”
While this case seeks to proactively block USDA from implementing these new and unprecedented terms and conditions, other pending lawsuits challenge other unlawful actions by USDA with respect to grants. For instance, in a suit brought by Earthjustice, FarmSTAND, and others challenging termination of grants, the court recently granted a preliminary injunction restoring $127 million in grants to Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access program grantees.
“The First Amendment rights of these plaintiffs are at stake in this case, and so is the future of critical work to build a fair food system that works for everyone,” said David Muraskin, Managing Director of Litigation at FarmSTAND. “The court must block these unlawful, unprecedented terms and conditions. If it doesn’t, the Trump Administration’s enforcement of them will force USDA grantees to abandon important work in support of the next generation of farmers, for fear of serious consequences for violating the new terms.”
“USDA’s new terms and conditions for grants are yet another example of this administration’s unlawful politicization of programs designed by Congress to support farmers and rural communities,” said Carrie Apfel, Deputy Managing Attorney of the Sustainable Food and Farming Program at Earthjustice. “USDA should stop claiming to help farmers when instead it is undermining the very food and farming communities these programs were created to serve. This sort of illegal gamesmanship should not be tolerated.”