Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Keepseagle v. Glickman
No. 1:99CV03119 (D. D.C. filed Oct. 11, 2000) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53852
Description
Native American Farmers Sue Department of Agriculture for Discrimination in Farm Credit Programs
Abstract
Suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture secretary, a class of
Native American farmers and ranchers alleges systematic
discrimination against it in farm credit and other farm programs.
The allegations and claims are similar to those Hispanic American
farmers brought in Garcia v. Glickman (Clearinghouse No.
53853) and African American farmers in Pigford v.
Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1999) (Clearinghouse No.
52,961). Plaintiffs say that, because of their race, defendant did
not assist them with applications, denied their applications for
credit or other farm programs, supplied loans late or less money
than they needed for adequate farming, and failed to investigate
their discrimination complaints. Plaintiffs report that Farmers
Home Administration officials made numerous racially demeaning
remarks. Other specific allegations include, for example, a
plaintiff who was denied emergency disaster loans after disease and
a blizzard took many of his calves, even though his region had been
declared a federal disaster area and most white farmers received
emergency loans. Two plaintiff family members say that local
officials advised them to sell their cattle in the fall and buy
them back in the spring to minimize losses in a falling market.
They say that the official required them to apply the proceeds of
the sale to their operating loans, then denied them a loan in the
spring to repurchase cattle. Plaintiffs claim violation of Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in addition to the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act and Administrative Procedure Act claims raised in
Garcia v. Glickman. [Editor’s note: For
more information on legal claims and alleged harm, see the case
report on Garcia v. Glickman, in this issue.]
