Plaintiffs challenged a USDA program under which “socially disadvantaged farmers” received more disaster relief funds—defined as including certain minority racial and ethnic groups and women.

The court granted Plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction, finding that the program was likely to violate the Equal Protection Clause. It enjoined USDA from making or increasing payments, or providing any additional relief, based on its “socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher” designation under its Emergency Relief Program 2022.

After Trump's Executive Order (14173) Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, the court asked both parties to submit a joint written statement detailing how the executive order bears on the outcome of the case. In the statement, the Department of Justice determined that the program at issue is unconstitutional due to its race and sex preferences and that it would no longer defend the program. Plaintiffs assert that settlement is possible and likely required under the new executive order. The Court granted the parties' request to pause the case to pursue a settlement.

On May 9, 2025, both parties filed a joint motion to send the case back to the USDA "to revise the challenged programs to cure the race and sex discrimination that the agency no longer defends." The court granted the motion and paused all proceedings and deadlines until the revisions to the program are finalized.

On January 16, 2026, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Defendants stated that they are entitled to dismissal of Plaintiffs' moot APA claims because Plaintiff was provided with all relief they might have won. Additionally, Defendants stated that there is no other injury or relief available. Lastly, Defendants stated that they are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' remaining APA claim concerning progressive factoring and that this factoring is race and sex neutral.

On January 16, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on their claims that Defendants unlawfully discriminated based on race and sex in the challenged programs and unlawfully implemented progressive factoring arbitrarily and capriciously and with discriminatory intent and effect.