Filed Date: Jan. 17, 2024
Closed Date: June 6, 2025
Clearinghouse coding complete
On January 17, 2024, the United States filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee against Patriot Bank, a community bank headquartered in Millington, Tennessee. The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Tennessee brought the complaint under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691–1691f, alleging that Patriot Bank engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful redlining in the Memphis metropolitan area between 2015 and 2020.
The complaint asserted that Patriot avoided providing home loans and mortgage services in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, locating nearly all of its branches, loan production offices, and mortgage officers in majority-white areas. The United States alleged that the bank targeted its advertising and outreach to white neighborhoods, ignored its own 2015 marketing plan for minority and low-income communities, and failed to take meaningful steps to address redlining risks despite repeated warnings from the Federal Reserve Board. According to the DOJ's analysis, only 7.6% of Patriot’s mortgage loans during the relevant period were made in majority-Black and Hispanic census tracts, compared to 22.6% for its peer lenders. The government sought declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, and civil penalties.
On January 30, 2024, Judge Thomas L. Parker entered a Consent Order resolving the case. Without admitting liability, Patriot agreed to maintain nondiscriminatory lending policies and to undertake extensive remedial measures designed to expand access to mortgage credit in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The Consent Order required the bank to:
The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the decree for a three-year term (or longer if Patriot had not disbursed all subsidy funds).
In August 2024, the court inadvertently entered a judgment dismissing the action, which conflicted with the decree’s clause retaining jurisdiction. On September 19, 2024, at the parties’ joint request, Judge Parker set aside that judgment and administratively closed the case, clarifying that the Consent Order remained in full effect and that the court retained jurisdiction during its term.
Early in the second Trump Administration, DOJ reviewed existing consent decrees with a view to dismiss cases that did not align with the new Administration's priorities. On May 23, 2025, after reviewing Patriot’s performance, the United States filed an unopposed motion to terminate the Consent Order and dismiss the case. Even though there was significant enforcement time remaining, the motion noted that Patriot had achieved substantial compliance with the monetary and injunctive provisions, including disbursement of the loan subsidy fund and continued community outreach.
The court terminated the Consent Order and dismissed the case with prejudice on June 6, 2025, entering final judgment on June 10, 2025.
Summary Authors
Jack Buckfire (11/4/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68165492/parties/united-states-v-patriot-bank/
Parker, Thomas Lee Robinson (Tennessee)
Raden, Jenna (Tennessee)
Williams, Sarah Pazar (Tennessee)
Hancock, Paul Francis (Tennessee)
Kelman, Olivia (Tennessee)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68165492/united-states-v-patriot-bank/
Last updated Oct. 29, 2025, 12:25 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Reversing Course on Existing Litigation
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 17, 2024
Closing Date: June 6, 2025
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The United States of America
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Patriot Bank (Millington, Shelby), Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. § 1691
Fair Housing Act/Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.
Other Dockets:
Western District of Tennessee 2:24-cv-02029
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Provide antidiscrimination training
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Affected Race(s):