Case Summary
As part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 signed by President Biden, Congress created a farm loan forgiveness program for non-white farmers. Under the program the U.S. Department of Agriculture is automatically forgiving federal farm loans at 120 percent of the loan value, unless the farmer is white.
Discriminating on the basis of race is illegal and unconstitutional. The federal government cannot grant specific benefits based solely on race, regardless of policy motivations. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the way to stop race-based discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. The federal government’s use of government-sponsored race discrimination as a tool to end “systemic racism” is patently unconstitutional.
That is why Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) and Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Rob Holman, a fourth-generation Tennessee farmer who is excluded from the program solely because of his skin color. It also challenges the government’s disregarding of the statutory prohibition on future loans for anyone who receives loan forgiveness under ARPA. Typically, people who get their FSA loans forgiven are ineligible to receive future FSA loans. The government is disregarding that and saying that even if you get your loan forgiven under Section 1005 of ARPA, you will still be eligible for future FSA loans.
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
Case History
Robert Thompson Holman owns a farm in Obion County, near Union City, located in the Western District of Tennessee. Rob is a fourth-generation Tennessee farmer whose family started farming over 150 years ago. He and his father still farm on the same land, growing mostly corn and soybeans on approximately 2,200 acres. He is a husband and the father of a young daughter.
In 2016, he took out an operational microloan from the Farm Service Agency, or FSA, which is covered under the terms of ARPA. In 2018, he took out another operational loan from the FSA, which is also covered under the terms of ARPA. Both loans remain outstanding. Rob would be eligible for the loan forgiveness program in Section 1005 of ARPA, except for the fact that he is not a member of any of the racial groups that are eligible for loan forgiveness. Making matters worse for Holman and similarly-situated white farmers is a provision of existing law that prohibits them from obtaining further loans from the Department if they receive any form of debt forgiveness on FSA loans.
Both of Rob’s Promissory Notes on the loans include the following statement on Page 1: “The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all of its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, [or] national origin . . . .” The Biden Administration’s actions blatantly renege on that promise and flout federal law by engaging in prohibited forms of racial discrimination, leaving Mr. Holman and his legal team little choice but to turn to the courts in pursuit of fairness, justice, and the equal protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution even though non-white farmers can obtain further FSA loans after their loans are forgiven under Section 1005 of ARPA.”
2025 Case Update
On May 6, 2025, Mountain States Legal Foundation and Southeastern Legal Foundation filed a petition for certiorari in Holman v. Vilsack, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this critical case. And now, on June 6, 2025, the Supreme Court requested a response from to our certiorari petition, signaling further consideration of the case.
Case Timeline:
- June 2, 2021: MSLF and SLF filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
- June 6, 2021: MSLF and SLF filed a Memorandum of Law and Facts ISO Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
- July 8, 2021: The District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Eastern Division granted the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
- August 2, 2021: The District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Eastern Division denied the government’s motion to stay the proceedings.
- September 29, 2022: MSLF and SLF file a motion for costs, attorneys fees, and expenses.
- April 4, 2023: US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Eastern Division denied MSLF and SLF’s motion for attorney fees and costs, holding that USDA’s defense of its racist program was good enough to avoid fees.
- August 30, 2023: MSLF and SLF filed a brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, asking the Court to reverse the district court’s finding that Holman was not the prevailing party, hold that he meets other Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) factors, and remand this case to the district court to determine the amount of fees and costs, adjusted to include time spent on the appeal.
- November 15, 2023: MSLF and SLF filed the reply brief in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- November 7, 2024: MSLF and SLF filed a petition for a rehearing en banc.
- February 3, 2025: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied MSLF and SLF’s petition for rehearing en banc.
- May 6, 2025: MSLF and SLF file a Writ of Certiorari petition at the Supreme Court asking the court to take up the case of Robert Holman.
- June 6, 2025: The Supreme Court requested a response from to our certiorari petition, signaling further consideration of the case.
- November 2025: Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed a brief recommending that the Supreme Court grant the cert petition, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand (GVR) for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lackey.
- December 15, 2025: The Supreme Court of the United States granted cert, the judgment is vacated, and the case is now remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of Lackey v. Stinnie.
