Farmer Who Faced Discrimination From Biden’s USDA Sues for Legal Fees

When the government wrongs a citizen, who should cover the court costs?

(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

During President Biden’s tenure, the USDA conditioned the receipt of disaster relief funds for farmers based on race. Some white farmers sued, alleging this was unconstitutional racial discrimination, leading several federal courts to implement nationwide preliminary injunctions against the practice. Congress repealed the offending provisions, and the farmers were vindicated for this blatant racial bias. Now, however, the dispute continues over the award of legal fees to the plaintiff, Robert Holman.

Holman’s case has been supported by the work of the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), which has argued that “Natural disasters don’t discriminate. Neither should USDA.” After gaining relief for white farmers like Robert Holman, the SLF sought reimbursement for its legal fees in a Tennessee US District Court. The Court denied the request because it determined that Holman was not a “prevailing party” under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which awards fees against the United States government “unless the Court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.”

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling against Holman without addressing whether he was a “prevailing party” under the statute when he did not win his case on the merits at trial and the statute was repealed. Instead, the Sixth Circuit held that the US government was “substantially justified” in defending the case and denied an award of $44,117 in legal fees. SLF has now asked the United States Supreme Court to weigh in, in Robert Holman v. Brooke Rollins.

The Cost of Fighting Discrimination

Readers may shrug their shoulders at a battle over whether lawyers get paid, but as SLF asserts in its Petition for Writ of Certiorari, it is essential that litigants are not deterred from seeking justice. “This case is exceptionally important. EAJA plays a vital role in ensuring that victims of government discrimination can vindicate their rights in court,” the organization explained. “The statute exists to discourage rash, unconstitutional conduct by federal agencies, and to ensure that aggrieved parties are not deterred from challenging such conduct by the prospect of bearing their own litigation costs.”

The United States Supreme Court will now consider hearing the case, which hinges on whether the US government was “substantially justified” in defending against Robert Holman’s and others’ claims of racial prejudice by the government. In a fiery dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Judge Amul Rodger Thaper emphasized why the case is important:

“COVID-19 didn’t discriminate against farmers based on the color of their skin. But the federal government did. The government conditioned a farmer’s eligibility for COVID-era debt relief on his race. And the government favored certain races without any evidence of past discrimination against them. Apparently, COVID was a crisis not to be wasted – a chance to play racial favorites when distributing public funds. Luckily, the Constitution stood in the way.

“The Constitution is no friend to racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, Americans are individuals of equal worth, not indistinguishable members of racial groups. When the government crafts policies at odds with that core truth, precedent rightly requires the government to come armed with evidence justifying its actions… But the government showed up here all but empty-handed.

“When the government distributes benefits, the Constitution demands that it treat us as individuals, not members of interchangeable racial groups. And precedent made that crystal clear when the government litigated this case. Therefore, its litigating position was inexcusable, not substantially justified.

“[I]t’s exceptionally important that we correctly interpret fee-shifting standards that, when properly applied, disincentivize discrimination. …Financial penalties for unsuccessful attempts at racial discrimination should make agencies less eager to discriminate in the first place. …Shaping federal agencies’ incentive structures when they consider whether to racially discriminate is exceptionally important.”

The argument of SLF is that the government should be required to pay the legal fees for white farmers who were compelled to file suit to protect fundamental liberties for all Americans. The US Supreme Court has a busy, controversial docket to consider, but considering the stakes for American farmers and the US Constitution, Robert Holman and the Southeastern Legal Foundation hope to establish legal precedent that protects both.

(Originally published at Liberty Nation News.)