Filed Date: Aug. 8, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is a challenge to U.S. Department of Agriculture programs that provide benefits to socially disadvantaged farmers based on sex and race.
On August 8, 2025, the Texas Farm Bureau and private plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), USDA Secretary, Brook Rollins, the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency, William Beam, and the United States of America. In its class action complaint, the plaintiffs challenged the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), a USDA program which provides additional benefits to “socially disadvantaged” farmers, a category defined largely by race and sex. The plaintiffs, who are white male farmers, alleged that they were denied fee waivers and discounts that would have been available if they belonged to certain racial groups or were women, and argued that this constituted unconstitutional discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection principles protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. They sought to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated farmers and request declaratory and injunctive relief to stop USDA from using race and sex based classifications in its programs.
This case was assigned to District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.
On September 5, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which refined the class definition and outlined additional requests for relief. The plaintiffs now sought to represent a class of “all farmers and ranchers in the United States who are currently, or will be in the future, excluded from USDA’s “socially disadvantaged” category and denied benefits based on race or sex, clarifying that it includes both present and future harm and applies across multiple USDA programs, not just the NAP. The amended complaint also expanded the plaintiffs’ request for relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought both preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the USDA from using race or sex based preferences, and sought a court order invalidating the statutory and regulatory definitions of “socially disadvantaged” under Titles 7 and 16, and accompanying regulations.
On October 1, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings due to a lapse of appropriations caused by the 2025 government shutdown. Then, on October 9, the defendants filed an additional motion to stay with the consent of the plaintiffs, which requested that the proceedings be stayed for 60 days, until December 12, 2025. The second motion notified the court that USDA is currently defending a similar challenge in Strickland v. USDA, in which the plaintiffs brought equal protection claims against the “socially disadvantaged” designation in certain other USDA programs. On February 10, 2025, the government filed a statement in Strickland explaining that “the Department of Justice has determined that the USDA programs at issue in this case are unconstitutional to the extent they include preferences based on race and sex,” and moreover that “USDA has independently determined that it will no longer employ the race- and sex-based ‘socially disadvantaged designation to provide increased benefits based on race and sex in the programs at issue in this case.” The motion further noted that the USDA had already rescinded the “socially disadvantaged” designation from numerous USDA discretionary programs and that the USDA was considering how to implement the administration’s position regarding the programs challenged in this case. Thus, the defendants requested a stay to preserve judicial resources while the USDA considered the implementation of the administration’s position.
On October 16, 2025, the court granted the October 9 motion to stay in light of the pending litigation in Strickland v. USDA. The court denied the October 1 motion to stay as moot.
At the end of the 60-day stay, on December 12, 2025, the parties filed a joint status report notifying the court that The parties had engaged in discussions exploring procedures that could address and resolve the issues raised in this case. To allow those discussions to continue, the parties proposed an additional 60-day stay of all litigation deadlines, until February 10, 2026. Following the joint status report, on December 18, 2025, the court granted the parties’ proposal and stayed all proceedings until February 10, 2026.
On February 10, 2026, the parties filed a joint status report and motion for a scheduling order. The report notified the court that the DOJ has determined that the USDA programs at issue are unconstitutional to the extent they include preferences based on race or sex.” That included the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the NAP, and the numerous other programs enacted under Titles 7 and 16 of the United States Code that require USDA to give preferential treatment to “socially disadvantaged” farmers or ranchers. The report additionally stated that the DOJ would no longer defend these programs in court. However, in anticipation that entities may seek to intervene in this action, the parties requested that the court issue a scheduling order setting forth a reasonable deadline for entities to seek leave to intervene.
On February 27, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class defined of “All farmers and ranchers in the United States who are encountering, or who will encounter, race or sex discrimination from the USDA based on their exclusion from its “socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher” designation, and have been or will be denied benefits or program access on that basis.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Sofia Yoder (4/9/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71061869/parties/texas-farm-bureau-v-usda/
Kacsmaryk, Matthew Joseph (Texas)
Byrd, Michael Lee (Texas)
Dickey, James V. (Texas)
Isgur, Benjamin Isaac (Texas)
Villalon, Natalie Moreland (Texas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71061869/texas-farm-bureau-v-usda/
Last updated April 10, 2026, 3:18 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 8, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiffs are white male farmers.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
Federal
The U.S. Department of Agriculture
The United States of America
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
Northern District of Texas 2:25-cv-00181
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Race(s):
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Case Summary of Texas Farm Bureau v. USDA, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47866/ (last updated 4/9/2026).