The Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association’s lawsuit against the USDA over the $2.2 billion Discrimination Financial Assistance Program has lost at every level so far, and the latest update in the BFAA lawsuit is that the group is preparing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, with a filing deadline of March 8, 2026. The district court dismissed the case in January 2024, the Sixth Circuit affirmed in October 2025, and a petition for en banc rehearing was apparently denied before the organization turned to the Supreme Court.
What the BFAA Is Fighting For
The lawsuit centers on “legacy claims.” Section 22007 of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 set aside $2.2 billion for farmers who experienced discrimination in USDA lending programs before 2021, and by July 2024 the USDA had disbursed roughly $2 billion across about 43,000 awards, with individual payments ranging from $3,500 to $500,000.1U.S. Senate. Booker Statement on Payment of Financial Assistance to Farmers That Suffered USDA Discrimination
The USDA refused to accept applications filed on behalf of Black farmers who had died before the program opened, deeming those applications “facially ineligible.” The BFAA, led by president Thomas Burrell, sued to force USDA to accept claims filed by descendants and estates.2U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association v. Rollins, No. 24-5119
The District Court Dismissal
The BFAA and several individual plaintiffs filed suit in August 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, captioned Black Farmers Agriculturalists Association, Inc. v. Vilsack, No. 2:23-cv-02527. On January 9, 2024, the district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.3Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Black Farmers Agriculturalists Association, Inc. v. Vilsack
The Sixth Circuit Ruling
On October 8, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The majority opinion by Judge Chad A. Readler, joined by Judge Andre B. Mathis, drew a distinction between “assistance” and “compensation.” Section 22007 provides “financial assistance,” which the court read as forward-looking help for living farmers, and a deceased person cannot be “assisted” because they are no longer engaged in any activity that money can help complete.2U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association v. Rollins, No. 24-5119
The majority distinguished the DFAP from the earlier Pigford settlements, which explicitly allowed heirs and estates to file claims. Those settlements were designed to compensate for past harm, so they could flow to survivors; the new program, the court said, serves a different purpose. The opinion also noted that the Pigford II settlement left more than $12 million in unclaimed funds. The panel rejected the plaintiffs’ due-process argument as well, finding no protected property interest in benefits the statute does not authorize.4Bloomberg Law. Black Farmers Fail to Revive Bias Suit Over USDA Aid Program
Judge White’s Partial Dissent
Senior Judge Helene N. White broke with the majority on the blanket exclusion of all legacy claims. She wrote that recovery under Section 22007 is measured by the “consequences” of past discrimination, a “distinctly compensatory framing” that is hard to square with a purely forward-looking reading. She also pointed to the USDA’s own program guide, which allows payments to former farmers and to “potential producers” who never actually operated a farm. White would have allowed legacy claims brought on behalf of farmers who were alive when the Inflation Reduction Act took effect, assuming all other conditions were met.2U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association v. Rollins, No. 24-51194Bloomberg Law. Black Farmers Fail to Revive Bias Suit Over USDA Aid Program
Rehearing and the Supreme Court Petition
In November 2025, the BFAA filed a petition for en banc rehearing, asking the full Sixth Circuit to take up the case. Burrell said at the time he expected a response within about a week and called on civil rights organizations to submit amicus briefs.5Action News 5. Black Farmers Appeal Court Ruling on USDA Discrimination Claims6Commercial Appeal. Black Farmers Discrimination Court Ruling
That petition was apparently denied. A notice on the BFAA website dated February 22, 2026, said a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was “being prepared for submission to the United States Supreme Court,” with a filing deadline of March 8, 2026. The organization also conducted a review of its membership records to confirm “associational standing” ahead of the filing.7Black Farmers & Agriculturalists Association. BFAA Official Website No public information confirms whether the petition was filed by the deadline or whether the Supreme Court has acted on it. The BFAA’s attorney throughout the litigation has been Percy Squire of Columbus, Ohio.8Tennessee Lookout. Black Farmers to Seek Rehearing After Appeals Court Rules Against Them in Discrimination Aid Suit
Why the Pigford Comparison Keeps Coming Up
The BFAA’s core argument leans on the Pigford settlements, which the federal government used to resolve earlier waves of discrimination claims. Pigford I, settled by consent decree on April 14, 1999, covered claims of USDA discrimination between 1981 and 1996. About 15,600 claimants prevailed under a “fast track” process that paid $50,000 per person plus loan forgiveness and tax relief, with the government paying roughly $1.06 billion in total.9National Agricultural Law Center. Pigford v. Glickman: A Policy and Legal Analysis10Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Pigford v. Glickman
Pigford II, created by the 2008 farm bill and funded through the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, added a $1.25 billion settlement for people who had tried to file late claims in the original case. Roughly 34,000 claims were processed. Pigford II explicitly allowed heirs and relatives of deceased farmers to participate as class members.11The Charlotte Post. Pigford Settlement Applications Open9National Agricultural Law Center. Pigford v. Glickman: A Policy and Legal Analysis
The BFAA argues the same rule should apply to Section 22007. The Sixth Circuit majority rejected that reading, and unless the Supreme Court takes the case and reverses, the USDA’s exclusion of legacy claims stands.