Love v. Vilsack
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175080
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Female farmers allege USDA discriminated on basis of gender in farm loan access and loan servicing, and in responsiveness to discrimination complaints.
- Plaintiffs claim USDA provides different administrative claims programs to other minority groups, but not to women, resulting in unequal treatment under the Fifth Amendment and APA.
- The case concerns Counts III–VI of the fourth amended complaint challenging the female farmers’ administrative claims process as inferior to those for African-American and Native American farmers.
- Pigford I and II (African-American farmers) and Keepseagle (Native American farmers) involved class actions with settlement-based administrative claims processes.
- Garcia and Love actions (Hispanic and female farmers) did not proceed via class settlements; instead, plaintiffs challenge the separate administrative process for women under the fourth amended complaint.
- USDA moved to dismiss Counts III–VI under Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, including standing and redressability considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge the female-administered claims program. | Plaintiffs allege injury from unequal treatment in program terms and seek redress. | USDA argues plaintiffs lack standing due to lack of redressable injury. | Plaintiffs lack redressability, defeating standing. |
| Whether redressability exists to grant relief—injunction or declaratory relief—over the challenged process. | Court should compel comparable terms to those offered to other groups or declare the process unlawful. | Court cannot compel settlement terms or invalidate the process to redress the injury. | Redressability fails; relief cannot redress the equal-protection injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (standing requires all three elements; redressability matters)
- Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (redressability concerns relief available to plaintiffs)
- Lozansky v. Obama, 841 F.Supp.2d 124 (D.D.C. 2012) (redressability and relief limitations in standing analysis)
- Jacobs v. Barr, 959 F.2d 313 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (two remedial avenues for equal-protection injury)