National Black Farmers Association and Association of American Indian Farmers are now parties to Texas case regarding debt relief for farmers of color
Today, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted a motion to intervene in a case concerning debt relief for farmers of color.
Public Justice filed the motion to intervene in Miller v. Vilsack on behalf of the National Black Farmers Association (NBFA) and Association of American Indian Farmers (AAIF). The case challenges the constitutionality of section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act, which provides debt relief to “socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and as part of the Biden Administration’s plan to address the decades of discrimination farmers of color have faced from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Court’s decision to allow NBFA and AAIF to intervene as parties in the case enables the organizations to represent their own interests and fight for justice they and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers deserve.
NBFA and AAIF moved to intervene and become defendants in the case after the government proposed extending the debt relief intended for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers to anyone who has outstanding, qualifying loans. This proposed remedy diverges from Congress’ original intention with section 1005 to remedy racial discrimination and keep farmers of color on their land. NBFA and AAIF know that relief funds that do not target their members will not end up benefiting their members and, in this case, could lead to further land loss and market opportunity.
“The government made a strong case for why targeted debt relief for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers is a necessary step to remedy the agency’s historic institutional discrimination so it’s baffling why they would argue for exactly what they show has failed in the past,” said Public Justice Food Project Litigation Director David Muraskin. “We are happy to see that the Court here understands the need for NBFA and AAIF to be parties to this case to protect their members’ ability to get the targeted debt relief they deserve.”
NBFA and AAIF previously submitted an amicus brief supporting USDA’s data defending the passage of Section 1005 with the stories and lived experiences of farmers and ranchers of color who were and are routinely refused help and subjected to abuse by USDA staff.
John Boyd and Kara Boyd, representatives from the National Black Farmers Association and Association of American Indian Farmers, respectively, issued the following statement in response to the decision:
Congress passed debt relief for farmers of color to address a specific problem: USDA’s discrimination against farmers of color. Expanding debt relief to all farmers will only exacerbate that problem. If government funding has historically flown disproportionately to white farmers, why would this be any different? Race-neutral debt relief would only uphold existing inequities.
The Texas court’s decision is a win for us, because it lets us represent our own interests. Farmers of color have been excluded from government resources for centuries and continue to be excluded today. You cannot remedy this discrimination by expanding the relief to everyone.
Striking down this lawsuit is about more than winning debt relief for farmers of color. It is about levelling the playing field for those who carry the burden of decades of discrimination. It is about holding onto our land and identity. It is about justice.