Black farmer group petitions to intervene in Texas debt relief lawsuit

From [HERE] A group of Black farmers is seeking to jump into the Texas federal court battle that has stalled a $5 billion debt relief program for farmers of color.

The motion to intervene filed on Tuesday by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund includes declarations from six farmers alleging discrimination from the Agriculture Department and Farm Service Agency loan programs.

The farmers argue that debt relief is key to their businesses’ survival and that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and his Justice Department attorneys can’t be counted on to defend the debt relief program as vigorously as the Black farmers federation will.

“Its members realize the benefits from the program and that the constitutionality of racial justice programs be upheld,” wrote the group’s attorneys with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Although the Federation’s members will be most impacted by the outcome of this case, the record is currently devoid of any stories or narratives of Black farmers or other farmers of color. … It is certain that the Federation will present the case of past governmental discrimination more comprehensively and compellingly than the government has to date.”

Background: The lawsuit at hand, Miller v. Vilsack, was first filed by Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, who argued that the program unconstitutionally discriminates against white farmers. The suit, backed by an organization led by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, came about a month after the debt relief was passed by Congress in the March Covid-19 relief package.

In July, Federal District Judge Reed O’Connor issued a preliminary injunction concluding that the program is probably unconstitutional and ordering USDA to not issue any payments until litigation is complete.

The Texas case is one of a slew of legal challenges to the program. A federal District Court in Florida was the first to issue a preliminary injunction, and a judge in Wisconsin issued a temporary restraining order.

The Justice Department, defending the program on behalf of USDA, opted not to appeal the first preliminary injunction issued or similar orders in other cases. [MORE]