The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of
Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers

Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development
Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney
March 12, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS20430
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers

Summary
On April 14, 1999, Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
approved a settlement agreement and consent decree in Pigford v. Glickman, a class action
discrimination suit between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and black farmers. The
suit claimed that the agency had discriminated against black farmers on the basis of race and
failed to investigate or properly respond to complaints from 1983 to 1997. The deadline for
submitting a claim as a class member was September 12, 2000. Cumulative data show that as of
December 31, 2011, 15,645 (69%) of the 22,721 eligible class members had final adjudications
approved under the Track A process, and 104 (62%) prevailed in the Track B process, for a total
cost of approximately $1.06 billion in cash relief, tax payments, and debt relief.
Many voiced concern over the structure of the settlement agreement, the large number of
applicants who filed late, and reported deficiencies in representation by class counsel. A provision
in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) permitted any claimant who had submitted a late-filing
request under Pigford and who had not previously obtained a determination on the merits of his
or her claim to petition in federal court to obtain such a determination. A maximum of $100
million in mandatory spending was made available for payment of these claims, and the multiple
claims that were subsequently filed were consolidated into a single case, In re Black Farmers
Discrimination Litigation
(commonly referred to as Pigford II).
On February 18, 2010, Attorney General Holder and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack announced
a $1.25 billion settlement of these Pigford II claims. However, because only $100 million was
made available in the 2008 farm bill, the Pigford II settlement was contingent upon congressional
approval of an additional $1.15 billion in funding. After a series of failed attempts to appropriate
funds for the settlement agreement, the Senate passed the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (H.R.
4783) to provide the $1.15 billion appropriation by unanimous consent on November 19, 2010.
The Senate bill was then passed by the House on November 30 and signed by the President on
December 8 (P.L. 111-291).
Like the original Pigford case, the Pigford II settlement provides both a fast-track settlement
process and higher payments to potential claimants who go through a more rigorous review and
documentation process. A moratorium on foreclosures of most claimants’ farms will remain in
place until after claimants have gone through the claims process. On October 27, 2011, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia granted final approval of the settlement agreement.
Under the terms of the court order, claims could be submitted beginning on November 14, 2011,
with a deadline for filing claims of May 11, 2012. Because no payments will be made until the
merits of all claims have been heard, it is unclear when successful claimants will actually receive
awards. A determination of the validity of claims is expected to be completed in the first part of
2013, after which the claims administrator will begin distributing payments to successful
claimants.
This report highlights some of the events that led up to the original Pigford class action suit and
the subsequent Pigford II settlement. The report also outlines the structure of both the original
consent decree in Pigford and the settlement agreement in Pigford II. In addition, the report
discusses the number of claims reviewed, denied, and awarded under Pigford, as well as some of
the issues raised by various parties under both lawsuits. It will be updated periodically.

Congressional Research Service

The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background................................................................................................................................ 1
USDA-Commissioned Study ..................................................................................................... 2
The Original Pigford Settlement ...................................................................................................... 2
Class Action Suit ....................................................................................................................... 2
Terms of the Consent Decree ..................................................................................................... 3
Current Status ............................................................................................................................ 5
Cumulative Data ........................................................................................................................ 6
In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation (Pigford II) ............................................................ 7
The Settlement Agreement and Claims Process ........................................................................ 8
Census Enumeration of Black Farmers ..................................................................................... 9
Legislative Action .................................................................................................................... 10

Tables
Table 1. Track A Statistics as of December 31, 2011(Final) ............................................................ 6

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 11

Congressional Research Service

The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers

Introduction
In 1999, a federal district court judge approved a settlement agreement and consent decree in
Pigford v. Glickman,1 a class action discrimination suit between the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and black farmers. Due to concerns about the large number of applicants
who did not obtain a determination on the merits of their claims under the original Pigford
settlement, Congress enacted legislation in 2008 that permitted any claimant who had submitted a
late-filing request under Pigford and who had not previously obtained a determination on the
merits of his or her claim to petition in federal court to obtain such a determination. The multiple
claims that were subsequently filed were
consolidated into a single case, In re Black
Farmers Discrimination Litigation

Demographics
(commonly referred to as Pigford II),2 and an
The 2007 Census of Agriculture reported that 2.20
million farms operated in the United States. Of this total,
agreement was reached to settle these claims.
32,938, or approximately 1.5% of al farms, were
This report discusses both the original Pigford
operated by African Americans.
consent decree and the subsequent Pigford II
Over 74% (24,466) of African American farmers in the
settlement. Before turning to the main
United States reside in Texas, Mississippi, North and
discussion regarding the litigation in these
South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia and Louisiana.
cases, it is useful to understand the historical
Average annual market value for farms operated by
background leading up to the litigation, as
African American farmers in 2007 was $30,829. The
well as some of the studies that have
national average for white U.S. farmers was $140,521.
examined USDA’s treatment of minority
Overall, the number of farms operated in the United
farmers during this period.3
States increased by 3.2% between 2002 and 2007. Farms
operated by African Americans increased from 29,090 to
32,938, an 11.7% increase over the five-year period.
Background
In 2007, 348 (757 in 2002) African American farmers
received Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) loans
Litigation against the U.S. Department of
amounting to a total of $9.9 million. This averaged
Agriculture (USDA) for discrimination
$28,408 per participating African American farmer, about
against African American farmers began in
32% of the national average ($87,917). Average CCC
August 1997 with two suits brought by black
loan value to white farmers was $88,379.
farmers—Pigford v. Glickman and Brewington
Other federal farm payments to African American
v. Glickman—but its origins go back much
operated farms averaged $4,260, half the national
further.4 For many years, black farmers had
average government farm payment of $9,518. About 31%
of all African American farmers received some
complained that they were not receiving fair
government payment compared to 50% of white farmers.
treatment when they applied to local county
committees (which make the decisions) for
Source: 2007 Census of Agriculture, NASS.
farm loans or assistance. These farmers
alleged that they were being denied USDA farm loans or forced to wait longer for loan approval
than were non-minority farmers. Many black farmers contended that they were facing foreclosure
and financial ruin because the USDA denied them timely loans and debt restructuring. Moreover,

1 185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1999).
2 Order, In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, No. 08-mc-0511 (D.D.C. filed August 8, 2008), available at
http://blackfarmercase.com/sites/default/files/2008.08.08%20-%20PLF%20Consolidation%20Order_0.pdf.
3 Other minority farmers, including Hispanic, Native American, and female farmers, have filed similar discrimination
lawsuits against USDA. For more information, see CRS Report R40988, Garcia v. Vilsack: A Policy and Legal
Analysis of a USDA Discrimination Case
, by Jody Feder and Tadlock Cowan.
4 As the current USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack is the named defendant in the class action suit at this time.
Congressional Research Service
1

The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers

many claimed that the USDA was not responsive to discrimination complaints. A huge agency
backlog of unresolved complaints began to build after the USDA’s Civil Rights Office was closed
in 1983.
USDA-Commissioned Study
In 1994, the USDA commissioned D. J. Miller & Associates, a consulting firm, to analyze the
treatment of minorities and women in Farm Service Agency (FSA) programs and payments. The
study examined conditions from 1990 to 1995 and looked primarily at crop payments and disaster
payment programs and Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) loans. The final report found that
from 1990 to 1995, minority participation in FSA programs was very low and minorities received
less than their fair share of USDA money for crop payments, disaster payments, and loans.
According to the commissioned study, few appeals were made by minority complainants because
of the slowness of the process, the lack of confidence in the decision makers, the lack of
knowledge about the rules, and the significant bureaucracy involved in the process. Other
findings showed that (1) the largest USDA loans (top 1%) went to corporations (65%) and white
male farmers (25%); (2) loans to black males averaged $4,000 (or 25%) less than those given to
white males; and (3) 97% of disaster payments went to white farmers, while less than 1% went to
black farmers. The study reported that the reasons for discrepancies in treatment between black
and white farmers could not be easily determined due to “gross deficiencies” in USDA data
collection and handling.
In December 1996, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman ordered a suspension of government
farm foreclosures across the country pending the outcome of an investigation into racial
discrimination in the agency’s loan program and later announced the appointment of a USDA
Civil Rights Task Force. On February 28, 1997, the Civil Rights Task Force recommended 92
changes to address racial bias at the USDA, as part of a USDA Civil Rights Action Plan. While
the action plan acknowledged past problems and offered solutions for future improvements, it did
not satisfy those seeking redress of past wrongs and compensation for losses suffered. In August
1997, a proposed class action suit was filed by Timothy Pigford (and later by Cecil Brewington)
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of black farmers against the
USDA. The suit alleged that the USDA had discriminated against black farmers from 1983 to
1997 when they applied for federal financial help and again by failing to investigate allegations of
discrimination.
The Original Pigford Settlement
This section discusses the Pigford lawsuit and the subsequent settlement approved by the court in
the consent decree, as well as current statistics regarding the resolution of Pigford claims.
Class Action Suit
Following the August 1997 filing for class action status, the attorneys for the black farmers
requested blanket mediation to cover all of the then-estimated 2,000 farmers who may have
suffered from discrimination by the USDA. In mid-November 1997, the government agreed to
mediation and to explore a settlement in Pigford. The following month, the parties agreed to stay
the case for six months while mediation was pursued and settlement discussions took place.
Congressional Research Service
2

The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers

Although the USDA had acknowledged past discrimination, the Justice Department opposed
blanket mediation, arguing that each case had to be investigated separately.
When it became apparent that the USDA would not be able to resolve the significant backlog of
individual complaints from minority farmers, and that the government would not yield on its
objections to class relief, plaintiffs’ counsel requested that the stay be lifted and a trial date be set.
On March 16, 1998, the court lifted the stay and set a trial date of February 1, 1999. On October
9, 1998, the court issued a ruling certifying as a class black farmers who filed discrimination
complaints against the USDA between January 1983 and February 21, 1997.5 In his ruling, Judge
Friedman concluded that the class action vehicle was “the most appropriate mechanism for
resolving the issue of liability” in the case.6 A complicating factor throughout the period,
however, was a two-year statute of limitations in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA),7 the
basis for the suit. Congress, accordingly, passed a measure in the FY1999 omnibus funding law
that waived the statute of limitations on civil rights cases for complaints made against the USDA
between 1981 and December 31, 1996.8
As the court date approached, the parties reached a settlement agreement and filed motions
consolidating the Pigford and Brewington cases, redefining the certified class and requesting
preliminary approval of a proposed consent decree. On April 14, 1999, the court approved the
consent decree, setting forth a revised settlement agreement of all claims raised by the class
members.9 Review of the claims began almost immediately, and the initial disbursement of
checks to qualifying farmers began on November 9, 1999.
Terms of the Consent Decree
Under the consent decree, an eligible recipient is an African American who (1) farmed or
attempted to farm between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996, (2) applied to USDA for
farm credit or program benefits and believes that he or she was discriminated against by the
USDA on the basis of race, and (3) made a complaint against the USDA on or before July 1,
1997. The consent decree set up a system for notice, claims submission, consideration, and
review that involved a facilitator, arbitrator, adjudicator, and monitor, all with assigned
responsibilities. The funds to pay the costs of the settlement (including legal fees) come from the
Judgment Fund operated by the Department of the Treasury, not from USDA accounts or
appropriations.10
The Pigford consent decree basically establishes a two-track dispute resolution mechanism for
those seeking relief. The most widely used option—Track A—provides a monetary settlement of
$50,000 plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability. Track A claimants

5 Pigford v. Glickman, 182 F.R.D. 341 (D.D.C. 1998).
6 Id. at 342.
7 The ECOA prohibits discrimination against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex,
marital status, age, or source of income. 15 U.S.C. §§1691 et seq.
8 P.L. 105-277, §741.
9 Pigford v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1999).
10 31 U.S.C. §1304. For more information on the Judgment Fund, see CRS Report R42835, The Judgment Fund:
History, Administration, and Common Usage
, by Vivian S. Chu and Brian T. Yeh.
Congressional Research Service
3

The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers

had to present substantial evidence (i.e., a reasonable basis for finding that discrimination
happened) that
• the claimant owned or leased, or attempted to own or lease, farm land;
• the claimant applied for a specific credit transaction at a USDA county office
during the applicable period;
• the loan was denied, provided late, approved for a lesser amount than requested,
encumbered by restrictive conditions, or USDA failed to provide appropriate loan
service, and such treatment was less favorable than that accorded specifically
identified, similarly situated white farmers; and
• the USDA’s treatment of the loan application led to economic damage to the class
member.
Alternatively, class participants could seek a larger, tailored payment by showing evidence of
greater damages under a Track B claim. Track B claimants had to prove their claims and actual
damages by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., it is more likely than not that their claims are
valid). The documentation to support such a claim and the amount of relief were reviewed by a
third party arbitrator, who makes a binding decision. The consent decree also provided injunctive
relief, primarily in the form of priority consideration for loans and purchases, and technical
assistance in filling out forms.11 Finally, plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw from the class and
pursue their individual cases in federal court or through the USDA administrative process.12
Under the original consent decree, claimants were to file their claim with the facilitator
(Poorman-Douglas Corporation) within 180 days of the consent decree, or no later than October
12, 1999. For those determined to be eligible class members, the facilitator forwarded the claim to
the adjudicator (JAMS-Endispute, Inc.), if a Track A claim, or to the arbitrator (Michael Lewis,
ADR Associates), if a Track B claim. If the facilitator determined that the claimant was not a
class member, the claimant could seek review by the monitor (Randi Roth). If the facilitator (and
later by court order, the arbitrator13) ruled that the claim was filed after the initial deadline, the
adversely affected party could request permission to file a late claim under a process subsequently
ordered by the court.
Late-filing claimants were directed to request permission to submit a late claim to the arbitrator
by no later than September 15, 2000.14 The arbitrator was to determine if the reason for the late
filing reflected extraordinary circumstances (e.g., Hurricane Floyd, a person being homebound,
or a failure of the postal system). Since there reportedly had been extensive and widespread
notice of the settlement agreement and process—including local meetings and advertisements in
radio, television, newspapers, and periodicals across the nation and in heavily populated black
minority farmer areas—lack of notice was ruled an unacceptable reason for late filing.

11 See also P.L. 107-171 (2002 farm bill), §10707 (mandating that the USDA carry out an outreach and technical
assistance program to assist “socially disadvantaged farmers” in owning farms and participating in USDA programs)
and §10708 (governing the composition of county, area, or local committees to encourage greater representation of
minority and women farmers).
12 USDA news release, July 11, 2002.
13 Pigford v. Glickman, No. 97-1978 and No. 98-1693 (D.D.C. December 20, 1999) (order delegating the authority to
make decisions on late claims to the arbitrator).
14 Pigford v. Glickman, No. 97-1978 and No. 98-1693 (D.D.C. July 14, 2000).
Congressional Research Service
4

The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers

Current Status
In general, there seems to be a consensus that many of the issues surrounding the implementation
of Pigford I can be attributed to the gross underestimation of the number of claims that would
actually be filed.15 At the same time, many in Congress and those closely associated with the
settlement agreement have voiced much concern over the large percentage of denials, especially
under Track A—the “virtually automatic” cash payment. Interest groups have suggested that the
relatively poor approval percentages (69%) can be attributed to the consent decree requirement
that claimants show that their treatment was “less favorable than that accorded specifically
identified, similarly situated white farmers,” which was exacerbated by poor access to USDA
files.16 Table 1 shows the Court Monitor cumulative statistics for Track A claims as of December
30, 2011. As of that date, there were also 169 eligible Track B claimants (1% of the total eligible
class members).17 These data are the final data reported by the Court Monitor.
More alarming to many, however, was the large percentage of farmers who did not have their
cases heard on the merits because they filed late—those now eligible to file under Pigford II, as
described below. Approximately 73,800 Pigford II petitions (66,000 before the September 15,
2000, late filing deadline) were filed under the late filing procedure, of which 2,116 were
ultimately allowed to proceed under the Pigford I process.18 Many claimants who were initially
denied relief under the late filing procedures subsequently requested a reconsideration of their
petitions. Out of the approximately 20,700 timely requests for reconsideration, 17,279 requests
had been decided; 113 had been allowed to proceed by the end of 2005, according to the most
recent compilation of individual case data.19 Many argued that the large number of late filings
indicated that the notice was “ineffective or defective.”20 Others countered these claims by
arguing that the Pigford notice program was designed, in part, to promote awareness and could
not make someone file.21 Some also suggested—including many of the claimants—that the class
counsel was responsible for the inadequate notice and overall mismanagement of the settlement
agreement.22 Judge Friedman, for example, cautioned the farmers’ lawyers for their failure to
meet deadlines and described their representation, at one point, as “border[ing] on legal
malpractice.”23

15 See Status of the Implementation of the Pigford v. Glickman Settlement, hearing Before the House Committee on the
Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, 108th Cong. at 1595 (2004) (letter from Michael K. Lewis, Arbitrator).
16 Environmental Working Group, Obstruction of Justice, USDA Undermines Historic Civil Rights Settlement with
Black Farmers
, Part 4 (July 2004) available at http://www.ewg.org/reports/blackfarmers/execsumm.php (hereinafter
EWG Report).
17 Office of the Monitor, at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/pigfordmonitor/ .
18 Arbitrator’s Ninth Report on the Late-Claim Petition Process (November 30, 2005).
19 Ibid.
20 Notice Hearing, 1-4. See also EWG Report, at Part 3.
21 Notice Hearing, at 10 (statement of Jeanne C. Finegan, consultant to Poorman-Douglas).
22 Tom Burrell, President, Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, Inc., Tom Burrell Lays out the Case of why
Al Pires, Class Counsel, Must be Fired!
, available at http://www.bfaa.net/case_layout.pdf; see also EWG Report, at
Part 3.
23 Pigford v. Glickman, No. 97-1978 and No. 98-1693 (D.D.C. April 27, 2001); see also Pigford v. Veneman, 292 F.3d
918, 922 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
Congressional Research Service
5

The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers

Table 1. Track A Statistics as of December 31, 2011(Final)
Track A
Totals
Track A Decisions
22,551
Final Track A Adjudications Approved
15,645 (69%)
Final Track A Adjudications Denied
6,906 (31%)
$50,000 Cash Awards
$770,050,000a
$3,000 Non-Credit Awards
$1,656,000
Debt Relief
$43,609,008
IRS Payments for Title A Claimants
$192,512,500
IRS Payments for Debt Relief
$7,779,941
Total Track A Relief
$1,015,607,449
Source: Office of the Monitor, http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/pigfordmonitor/.
a. This number may reflect payments actual y made thus far.
Judge Friedman also declared that he was “surprised and disappoint[ed]” that USDA did not want
to include in the consent decree a sentence that in the future the USDA would exert “best efforts
to ensure compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations prohibiting discrimination.”24
The judge’s statements apparently did not go unnoticed, as the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists
Association (BFAA) filed a $20.5 billion class action lawsuit in September 2004 against the
USDA on behalf of roughly 25,000 farmers for alleged racial discriminatory practices against
black farmers between January 1997 and August 2004. This lawsuit, however, was dismissed in
March 2005 because BFAA failed to show it had standing to bring the suit.25
Cumulative Data
The cumulative data for Pigford I were reported December 31, 2011, in the final Court Monitor
Report published April 1, 2012.26 These data include both Track A and Track B claimants, and are
summarized below:
• Approximately 22,721 claimants were found eligible to participate in the claims
process.27
• Approximately 22,552 claimants chose to resolve their claims through Track A.
Approximately 15,645 (69%) prevailed in the Track A claims process.28

24 Pigford v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82, 112 (D.D.C. 1999).
25 Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Assoc. v. Veneman, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5417 (D.D.C. March 29, 2005).
26 Final Court Monitor Report is available at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/pigfordmonitor/reports/
Rpt20120331_final.pdf.
27 This number includes claimants who filed claim packages on or before the October 12, 1999, deadline and claimants
who received permission from the Arbitrator to file a “late claim” after the October 12, 1999, claims filing deadline.
The 22,721 eligible claimants include those found eligible by the Facilitator in initial screening decisions and those
found eligible by the Facilitator on reexamination of the eligibility screening decision.
28 This number includes claimants who initially elected Track B, but who switched to Track A with the consent of the
Government. The 15,645 claims approved by the Adjudicator as of the end of 2011 include both initial Adjudicator
decisions and Adjudicator decisions on reexamination.
Congressional Research Service
6

The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers

• Approximately 169 claimants chose to resolve their claims through Track B.
Approximately 104 (62%) prevailed in the Track B claims process29 or settled
their Track B claims and received a cash payment.
• Approximately 5,848 claims were the subject of a petition for reexamination of a
decision by the Facilitator (eligibility), Adjudicator (Track A), or Arbitrator
(Track B). The Monitor directed reexamination of approximately 2,941 (50%) of
the claims.
• The federal government provided a total of approximately $1.06 billion
($1,058,577,198) in cash relief, estimated tax payments, and debt relief to
prevailing claimants (Track A and Track B).
In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation
(Pigford II
)
Due to concerns about the large number of applicants who did not obtain a determination on the
merits of their claims under the original Pigford settlement, Congress included a provision in the
2008 farm bill that permitted any claimant who had submitted a late-filing request under Pigford
and who had not previously obtained a determination on the merits of his or her claim to petition
in federal court to obtain such a determination.30 This provision did not reopen the previous
Pigford litigation, but rather provided such farmers with a new right to sue. Ultimately, multiple
separate lawsuits were filed, and these claims were consolidated into a single case, In re Black
Farmers Discrimination Litigation
(commonly referred to as Pigford II).31
On February 18, 2010, Attorney General Holder and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack announced
a $1.25 billion settlement of these Pigford II claims.32 Normally, funding for the costs of such
settlements would be paid out of the Judgment Fund, which is a permanent, indefinite
appropriation for the payment of final judgments and “compromise settlements” for which
“payment is not otherwise provided.”33 However, because $100 million was made available for
payment of Pigford II claims in the 2008 farm bill, meaning that payment was otherwise provided

29 This number includes both initial Arbitrator decisions and Arbitrator decisions on reexamination. A petition for
Monitor review was filed in 2012 for one of the prevailing Track B claims. An additional 41 claimants who initially
elected Track B prevailed in the Track A claims process after they switched to Track A with the consent of the
Government. As of the end of 2011, there was one pending claim in which the Government agreed that a claimant who
initially elected Track B could switch to Track A. As of the end of 2011, the claimant’s Track A claim remained
pending a final Track A decision. The Adjudicator issued a decision in this claim in 2012.
30 P.L. 110-246, §14012.
31 Order, In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, No. 08-mc-0511 (D.D.C. filed August 8, 2008), available at
http://blackfarmercase.com/sites/default/files/2008.08.08%20-%20PLF%20Consolidation%20Order_0.pdf. For more
information, see http://blackfarmercase.com/. The court overseeing the Pigford II litigation authorized the law firms
representing the plaintiffs to establish the website for information purposes. Case Management Order No. 1, In re Black
Farmers Discrimination Litigation, No. 08-mc-0511 (D.D.C. filed December 15, 2008), available at
https://www.blackfarmercase.com//Documents/
2008.12.15%20Signed%20CMO%20No.%201%20re%20website%20and%20phone%20bank_0.pdf.
32 Settlement Agreement, In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, No. 08-mc-0511 (February 18, 2010, revised
and executed as of May 13, 2011), available at https://www.blackfarmercase.com//Documents/
SettlementAgreement.pdf.
33 31 U.S.C. §1304.
Congressional Research Service
7

The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers

for, the Pigford II settlement was contingent upon congressional approval of an additional $1.15
billion in funding.
After a series of failed attempts to appropriate funds for the settlement agreement (see
“Legislative Action” section below), the Senate passed the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (H.R.
4783) to provide the $1.15 billion appropriation by unanimous consent on November 19, 2010. In
addition to the funding, the legislation contains several measures that appear to be designed to
combat potential fraud during the settlement process. The Senate bill was passed by the House on
November 30, 2010, and signed by the President on December 8, 2010.34 Relevant provisions in
the act have been incorporated into the settlement agreement, which was revised as of May 13,
2011.
The Settlement Agreement and Claims Process
Under the terms of the Pigford II settlement agreement, an eligible claimant is any individual who
submitted a late-filing request under Section 5(g) of the original Pigford consent decree after
October 12, 1999, and before June 19, 2008, but who has not obtained a determination on the
merits of his or her discrimination complaint. Like the original Pigford decision, the Pigford II
settlement provides both a “fast-track” adjudication process and a track for higher payments to
claimants who go through a more rigorous review and documentation process. Potential claimants
can seek the fast-track payments of up to $50,000 plus debt relief, or choose the longer process
for damages of up to $250,000.
On October 27, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted final approval
of the settlement agreement.35 Under the terms of the court order, claims may be submitted
beginning on November 14, 2011. Meanwhile, the deadline for filing claims is May 11, 2012.
Both the settlement agreement and the order and opinion approving the agreement set forth
detailed requirements regarding claims submission procedures, but individuals who wish to file a
claim should begin the process by contacting the claims administrator, requesting a claim
package, and submitting claim forms, which became available on November 14, 2011. The
deadline for submitting claims was May 11, 2012.
Individuals who wish to file a claim do not need to hire an attorney or otherwise pay money to
participate in the settlement, but if they wish to receive a free legal consultation regarding their
eligibility to file, they may want to contact one of the law firms that already represents Pigford II
claimants.36 The court overseeing the Pigford II litigation authorized the law firms representing
the plaintiffs to establish a website for information purposes, and interested parties may wish to
consult the website at http://blackfarmercase.com/ for more information about the claims process
or to request a claim form.37 Under the settlement, no claimants will be paid until the merits of all

34 P.L. 111-291.
35 Order and Judgment, In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, No. 08-mc-0511 (D.D.C. filed October 27,
2011), available at https://www.blackfarmercase.com//Documents/OrderApproving%20Settlement.pdf. See also,
Opinion, In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, No. 08-mc-0511 (D.D.C. filed October 27, 2011), available at
https://www.blackfarmercase.com//Documents/Opinion%20Approving%20Settlement.pdf.
36 For more information, see http://blackfarmercase.com/.
37 Case Management Order No. 1, In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, No. 08-mc-0511 (D.D.C. filed
December 15, 2008), available at https://www.blackfarmercase.com//Documents/
2008.12.15%20Signed%20CMO%20No.%201%20re%20website%20and%20phone%20bank_0.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8

The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers

claims have been determined. Claims are now expected to be examined in the first part of 2013,
after which the claims administrator will begin mailing payments to successful claimants.
The 2008 farm bill provision also mandated a moratorium on all loan acceleration and foreclosure
proceedings where there is a pending claim of discrimination against USDA related to a loan
acceleration or foreclosure. This provision also waives any interest and offsets that might accrue
on all loans under this title for which loan and foreclosure proceedings have been instituted for
the period of the moratorium. If a farmer or rancher ultimately does not prevail on her claim of
discrimination, then the farmer or rancher will be liable for any interest and offsets that accrued
during the period that the loan was in abeyance. The moratorium terminates on either the date the
Secretary of Agriculture resolves the discrimination claim or the date the court renders a final
decision on the claim, whichever is earlier. The Pigford II settlement reiterates these provisions.
Census Enumeration of Black Farmers
Questions have been raised about the number of black farmers who were or are eligible for a
settlement under Pigford or Pigford II. Determining the number of African American farm
operators who farmed during the period of January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996, is difficult
because of the way in which the Census of Agriculture defined farm operator. Prior to the 2002
Census of Agriculture, only principal farm operators were counted. In the 1982 Census of
Agriculture, there were 33,250 African American-operated farms; in 1987, 22,954; in 1992,
18,816; and in 1997, 18,451. Essentially, the number of African American farms was treated as
synonymous with the number of African American operators.
These statistics, however, failed to recognize that many farms are operated by more than one farm
operator. In 2002, the Census of Agriculture collected data for a maximum of three principal
operators per farm. The 2002 Census enumerated 29,090 African American farm operators. This
statistical change more accurately captured the actual number of operators, that is, those who are
actually engaged in farming. For example, a single farm may be operated by four or more
operators, each of whom could have conceivably made loan applications to USDA agencies. In
addition, a farm operator might operate rented or leased land owned by a principal operator. In
such a case, that operator renting or leasing farmland would not have been counted as the
operator of that farm. Under the term of the consent decree, however, such a farmer could be an
eligible claimant because he or she farmed or tried to farm during the requisite time period. The
varying Census definitions of farm, farm operator, and farm owner help explain why the number
of initial claimants in the Pigford case (approximately 94,000) was higher than the number of
farms/farm operators enumerated by the Census of Agriculture between 1982 and 1997 and why
the estimated number of potential Pigford II claimants may be greater than the number of
farms/farm operators enumerated in those or subsequent Census counts.
In addition, it is important to note that there may be other reasons for discrepancies between the
number of farmers reflected in farm Census data and the number of claimants under Pigford or
Pigford II. For example, individuals who attempted to farm but who were denied loans or other
farm assistance would not be counted as farmers but may have been or may be eligible to file a
claim under the terms of the two settlement agreements. Likewise, the estate of a deceased
individual who farmed or attempted to farm during the eligibility period may be entitled to relief
under either settlement, but such persons would not be counted as farm operators. Finally, due to
fraud or mistake, some individuals who are not eligible may have filed or may file claims under
Pigford or Pigford II, but such claims would not be entitled to an award. For example, nearly
7,000 Track A claims in Pigford (31%) were denied relief, presumably because such claims
Congressional Research Service
9

The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers

lacked merit or had other defects. Thus, the number of claims filed cannot be viewed as an
accurate representation of the number of awards that have been or will be made under the two
settlements.
Legislative Action
Due to long-standing congressional interest in providing relief to late-filers who did not receive
assistance under the original Pigford settlement, numerous bills that would provide a remedy to
black farmers who were victims of discrimination have been introduced in recent legislative
sessions.
For example, in the 110th Congress, the Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2007 (H.R. 899; S. 515)
and the African-American Farmers Benefits Relief Act of 2007 (H.R. 558) were introduced to
provide relief to many of these claimants who failed to have their petitions considered on the
merits. The provisions of these bills were incorporated into the 2008 farm bill,38 providing up to
$100 million for potential settlement costs. The Administration requested an additional $1.15
billion for these potential settlement costs in its FY2010 budget, but appropriators did not provide
such funding in the FY2010 appropriations bill.39 Meanwhile, Senator Charles Grassley and
Senator Kay Hagan introduced S. 972, a bill that would have amended the 2008 farm bill to allow
access to an unlimited Judgment Fund at the Department of the Treasury to pay successful claims.
The legislation also would have allowed for legal fees to be paid from the fund in addition to anti-
fraud protection regarding claims. A related bill in the House (H.R. 3623) was also introduced by
Representative Artur Davis.
During the 111th Congress, Attorney General Holder and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack
announced a settlement of the Pigford II claims. The Administration requested $1.15 billion in a
2010 supplemental appropriation (H.R. 4899) for the Pigford II settlement. Senator Inouye
introduced an amendment (S.Amdt. 3407) to H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders Act of 2009, to
provide the requested $1.15 billion. On March 10, 2010, the Senate voted 66-34 to invoke cloture
on the bill and limit debate on the substitute being considered for amendment purposes. The vote
blocked S.Amdt. 3407 as non-germane. On May 28, 2010, the House passed its version of H.R.
4213 and included the $1.15 billion for the settlement. The Senate version of the bill did not
recommend the $1.15 billion, and H.R. 4213 passed without the Pigford II funding.
Meanwhile, the House version of H.R. 4899, the supplemental appropriations bill that passed the
House on March 24, 2010, also included the funding for Pigford II. The Senate version of H.R.
4899, which passed May 27, did not include the funding. Subsequently, the House passed an
amended version of H.R. 4899 that included the funding on July 1. However, the Senate objected
to the House version, and on July 27, the House passed the Senate’s May 27 version of H.R. 4899
that did not include the funding for Pigford II.
Finally, on November 19, 2010, by unanimous consent, the Senate passed the Claims Resolution
Act of 2010 (H.R. 4783) to provide the $1.15 billion appropriation. The Senate bill was then
passed by the House on November 30 and signed by the President on December 8, 2010.40

38 P.L. 110-246, §14012.
39 P.L. 111-80.
40 P.L. 111-291.
Congressional Research Service
10

The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers


Author Contact Information

Tadlock Cowan
Jody Feder
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
Legislative Attorney
Development
jfeder@crs.loc.gov, 7-8088
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600


Congressional Research Service
11