Black Farmers Fail to Revive Bias Suit Over USDA Aid Program

The Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association Inc. won’t get a second chance to pursue their lawsuit alleging a $2.2 billion US Department of Agriculture financial aid program wrongly denies benefits to those filing on behalf of eligible farmers who have since died.

The statute establishing USDA’s Discrimination Financial Assistance Program doesn’t provide the agency discretion to accept claims based on discrimination faced by those deceased farmers, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said in a Wednesday opinion.

The USDA launched the DFAP in 2023 to provide financial assistance to farmers and landowners who either suffered discrimination by the agency through its loan programs, or assumed farm loan debt accrued through discriminatory practices prior to 2021.

The BFAA and several of its members appealed a lower court’s dismissal of their lawsuit due to a lack of standing, arguing in a brief to the Sixth Circuit that excluding legacy applications perpetuates historical racial discrimination by the USDA in intentionally denying Black farmers loans and goes against the text of the Inflation Reduction Act, which created the program. The plaintiffs also argued the blanket exclusion and lack of any appeals process violates Fifth Amendment due process protections.

But the farmers’ “attack puts the cart before the horse,” Judge Chad A. Readler wrote for the majority, because Congress didn’t provide the USDA discretion to accept claims based on discrimination faced by deceased farmers.

The statute establishing the program directs USDA to provide financial assistance to the farmers who have experienced discrimination. For claims to qualify, the money would have to assist a deceased farmer who was subjected to discrimination. “That is impossible,” Readler wrote.

Compensation, Not Assistance

The farmers’ arguments here “are better understood to seek ‘compensation’ for past harm to deceased farmers, not ‘assistance,’” and Congress is “seemingly well aware” of the difference between compensation and assistance, the judge wrote. And although a farmer can’t submit a claim on behalf of a deceased ancestor, they can file a claim if they’re a current holder of a debt that resulted from past alleged discrimination.

The farmers also have no due-process-protected property interest in the USDA’s program, since its governing statute provides them no claim of entitlement to its benefits, Readler added.

Senior Judge Helene N. White in a partial dissent that there’s “clearly” a compensatory element to Congress’ decision to use the term assistance in the statute. Recovery is measured by the consequences stemming from past discrimination, “a distinctly compensatory framing.” White said she agrees that the statute’s use of the term assistance “fairly contemplates” that a claimant is alive to receive the payment, but would hold that legacy claims brought on behalf of farmers who were still alive when the law took effect should be eligible.

Judge Andre B. Mathis joined the majority.

Percy Squire of Columbus, Ohio, represents the plaintiffs.

The case is Black Farmers Agric. Ass’n Inc. v. Rollins, 6th Cir., No. 24-05119, 10/8/25.