Filed Date: July 6, 2021
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On July 6, 2021, the plaintiffs filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota against the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency ("the defendants"). The plaintiffs, white farmers and/or borrowers on a farm loan, claimed that the defendants violated the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that under Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 ("Section 1005"), they were not eligible for assistance on account of their race.
Section 1005, entitled "Farm Loan Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers," appropriates payments to help socially disadvantaged farmers pay off their farm loans. Farmers and ranchers that did not qualify as "socially disadvantaged" on the basis of race or ethnicity, though, were ineligible for farm loan assistance. Such groups included: "American Indians or Alaskan Natives; Asians; Blacks or African Americans; Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders; and Hispanics or Latinos." The plaintiffs argued that but for their race, they would have been eligible for assistance under Section 1005.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Section 1005 violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause because the law was based on racial classifications. The plaintiffs argued that the law did not pass strict scrutiny because the government failed to show a compelling interest and the law was not narrowly tailored to remedy specific instances of racial discrimination.
Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that Section 1005 violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for failing to comply with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because the APA prohibited agency actions that were not in accordance with law and those contrary to a constitutional right.
The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from enforcing either the "socially disadvantaged" provisions in Section 1005 or the section as a whole. The plaintiffs also sought attorneys fees and nominal damages in the amount of $1.00.
On July 21, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to stay all proceedings in this case pending related litigation. On July 1, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas had already certified a class of farmers and ranchers bringing an equal protection challenge to Section 1005 like the one the plaintiffs brought here. The Texas court also issued an injunction in Miller v. Vilsack, 4:21-cv-595 (N.D. Tex. 2021), preventing the Government from disbursing funds under Section 1005 while that litigation proceeded. As such, the defendants asked the North Dakota court to stay this case to avoid the risk of being unnecessarily duplicative and yielding inconsistent results.
Following the plaintiffs' response in opposition to this motion, Magistrate Judge Alice R. Senechal granted the defendant's motion to stay the case pending the resolution of the Miller case in Texas to conserve judicial resources.
Judge Senechal directed the parties to file a status report every six months from the date of the order entered on September 7, 2021.
This case remains ongoing as the first status report will be due to the court on March 7, 2022, or after the resolution of the Miller case in Texas, whichever occurs first.
Summary Authors
Richa Bijlani (1/31/2022)
Miller v. Vilsack, Northern District of Texas (2021)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60041898/parties/tiegs-v-vilsack/
Senechal, Alice R. (North Dakota)
Fa, Wencong M (California)
Ortner, Daniel M. (California)
Roper, Glenn Evans (Colorado)
Knapp, Michael Fraser (District of Columbia)
Senechal, Alice R. (North Dakota)
Welte, Peter David (North Dakota)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60041898/tiegs-v-vilsack/
Last updated April 4, 2024, 3:07 a.m.
State / Territory: North Dakota
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 6, 2021
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
White farmers who each hold at least one farm loan for which they would be eligible for assistance under Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 but for their race.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Secretary of Agriculture (- United States (national) -), Federal
Farm Service Agency Administrator (- United States (national) -), Federal
Secretary of Agriculture (Washington), Federal
Administrator (Washington), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General:
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis:
Race:
Benefit Source: