Filed Date: Oct. 22, 2021
Closed Date: May 21, 2025
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged Trustmark National Bank’s alleged pattern or practice of redlining—refusing to provide equal access to mortgage credit in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Memphis metropolitan area.
On October 22, 2021, the United States Department of Justice and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed this lawsuit against Trustmark National Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The complaint alleged that, between 2014 and 2018, Trustmark intentionally avoided serving the credit needs of majority-Black and Hispanic communities in the Memphis, Tennessee–Mississippi–Arkansas Metropolitan Statistical Area. Specifically, the government claimed that Trustmark located nearly all of its branches and mortgage loan officers in majority-white neighborhoods, conducted minimal outreach in communities of color, and maintained inadequate fair-lending oversight, resulting in significantly fewer loan applications and originations from majority-Black and Hispanic tracts than comparable lenders.
The United States and CFPB brought the action under the Fair Housing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and Consumer Financial Protection Act, alleging that Trustmark’s conduct constituted unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties, and orders requiring the bank to take affirmative steps to remedy the effects of its redlining practices.
That same day, the parties jointly submitted a Consent Order resolving the claims. Without admitting or denying liability, Trustmark agreed to implement extensive remedial measures and pay civil penalties. The consent order required the bank to (1) invest $3.85 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase mortgage lending in majority-Black and Hispanic census tracts; (2) spend $400,000 on partnerships with community and government organizations providing financial education and homeownership services; (3) allocate $200,000 per year for advertising, outreach, and credit counseling targeted toward underserved communities; (4) open a new loan production office in a majority-Black or Hispanic tract; and (5) pay a $5 million civil penalty to the CFPB (with $4 million credited against a concurrent OCC penalty).
The five-year consent order also required the establishment of a Fair Lending Oversight Committee, annual fair-lending training, and regular reporting to the DOJ and CFPB. Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. approved the consent judgment on October 27, 2021, dismissing the case while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the order.
After the second Trump Administration began, the United States reviewed exisitng decrees with an eye to dismissing those that did not align with the Adminsitration's priorities. Presumably as part of that review, DOJ decided not to leave this consent order in place for its full negotiated five years. Instead, on May 20, 2025, the United States moved to terminate the consent order on the stated basis that Trustmark had fully complied with its obligations. Judge Mays granted the motion the following day, dismissing the action with prejudice.
This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Jack Buckfire (10/28/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60666930/parties/united-states-of-america-v-trustmark-national-bank/
Blumberg, Jeffrey (Tennessee)
Campos, Marta (Tennessee)
Hazelkorn, Benjamin (Tennessee)
Kuo, Eileen (Tennessee)
Lee, Nicholas (Tennessee)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60666930/united-states-of-america-v-trustmark-national-bank/
Last updated March 30, 2026, 3:30 a.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: Oct. 22, 2021
Closing Date: May 21, 2025
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The United States of America and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Private Entity/Person
Trustmark National Bank
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 2:21-cv-02664
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Issues
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Case Summary of United States of America v. Trustmark National Bank, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46994/ (last updated 10/28/2025).