Agriculture Archives - Columbia Law Review

“How long should I stay dedicated? How long ’til opportunity meet preparation?” – Nipsey Hussle.[footnote]Nipsey Hussle, Dedication, on Victory Lap (CD, All Money In No Money Out & Atlantic Records Feb. 13, 2018).[/footnote] “Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.[footnote]Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter From Birmingham Jail, in Why We Can’t Wait 77, 90 (1963).[/footnote] Introduction John Boyd, Jr., was only eighteen years old when he purchased his first farm.[footnote]Scott McFetridge, Black Farmers Sue Government for Promised Federal Aid, PBS: NewsHour (Dec. 6, 2022), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/black-farmers-sue-government-for-promised-federal-aid (on file with the Columbia Law Review ).[/footnote] It was the early 1980s, more than a decade after the height of the Civil Rights Movement, yet Boyd recalls facing an atmosphere at the local USDA office reminiscent of the Jim Crow era.[footnote]Id.[/footnote] Boyd, a fourth-generation Black farmer from Virginia, knew the challenge of navigating the USDA’s complex system of financing, insurance, research, and education programs, especially as a Black man.[footnote]Id.[/footnote] But Boyd was, in many ways, one of the lucky ones. This Essay argues that Boyd’s story reveals a broader pattern of oligarchic control over agricultural resources, in which a small elite has shaped policies to serve its social and economic interests, entrenching racial and economic hierarchies in the agricultural political economy. Agricultural oligarchy represents a distinct form of concentrated power that operates through economic control over land, credit, and markets; political influence over agricultural policy and rural governance; and cultural dominance over narratives about agricultural development and national identity. This system endures not through market competition but through the deliberate construction of barriers to entry, the capture of public institutions, and the deployment of state power to preserve existing hierarchies. Its ideological force persists through dignitary harms that undermine the full citizenship of marginalized groups—a process this Essay terms “structural extermination,” composed of three interlocking dynamics: exploitation, expropriation, and erasure. Put simply, the story of American agriculture is one of oligarchic power—from slavery and the plantation economy to the consolidation of corporate control in the modern era. The antebellum plantation system constituted an oligarchy because it concentrated agricultural control in the hands of a small elite that used that power to shape legal frameworks, political representation, and cultural narratives to preserve its dominance. It was not merely an economic arrangement but also a comprehensive regime of social, political, and economic control, one that required the systematic subordination of Black agricultural labor to maintain both its material base and ideological legitimacy. Although emancipation formally ended slavery, it did not dissolve the oligarchic structure underlying American agriculture. Instead, it proved remarkably adaptable, reconstituting itself through legal and economic mechanisms that preserved concentrated power while adjusting to new political conditions. Through sharecropping, discriminatory lending practices, and inequitable federal programs, White landowners sustained their wealth and influence across generations, perpetuating a system of racial and economic domination that continues to shape agricultural life today.[footnote]See Areeba Haider, Adiam Tesfaselassie, Siddhartha Aneja & Sierra Wilson, A Growing Problem: How Market Power in Agriculture Fuels Racial and Economic Inequality 7 (2022), https://www.georgetownpoverty.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/AGrowingProblem-April2022.pdf [https://perma.cc/G228-NT9K] (explaining how market power, structural racism, and economic inequality resulted in structural discrimination against Black farmers).[/footnote] For a brief period, the agricultural landscape looked markedly different. In the 1920s, nearly one million Black farmers were stewarding over sixteen million acres of land, about one-seventh of all U.S. farm operations at the time.[footnote]See Kyle Ridgeway, Broken Promises: The Continuing Decline of Black Farm Owners and Operators in America, 27 U.C. Davis Soc. Just. L. Rev. 50, 52 (2023) (“Black farmers once made up fourteen percent of America’s farm owners . . . .”); Abril Castro & Caius Z. Willingham, Progressive Governance Can Turn the Tide for Black Farmers, Ctr. for Am. Progress (Apr. 3, 2019), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/progressive-governance-can-turn-tide-black-farmers/ (on file with the Columbia Law Review ) (“At the height of black farming in 1920, black farmers operated 925,710 farms, about one-seventh of all farm operations in the United States.”).[/footnote] Yet by the 1970s, decades of systemic discrimination had produced a staggering 90% decline in Black farm ownership.[footnote]See Dania V. Francis, Darrick Hamilton, Thomas W. Mitchell, Nathan A. Rosenberg & Bryce Wilson Stucki, Black Land Loss: 1920−1997, 112 AEA Papers & Procs. 38, 38 (2022) (“Black agricultural land ownership was at a peak just after the turn of the twentieth century; however, there was a nearly 90 percent decline in ownership from 1910 to 1997.” (citation omitted)). Compare 5 Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dep’t of Com., Thirteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1910: Agriculture 1909 and 1910, at 182 & tbl. 16 (1914), https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/archive/files/41033898v5ch03.pdf [https://perma.cc/S3PD-94FW] (documenting 241,221 non-White farm owners in 1910 and finding that Black farm ownership increased 16.8% in the past decade), with 1 Nat’l Agric. Stat. Serv., USDA, 1997 Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data 24 tbl. 16 (1999), https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/archive/files/1997-United_States-United_States_Data-1604-Table-16.pdf [https://perma.cc/Y8W8-UMSY] (documenting only 29,397 non-White full farm owners in 1997).[/footnote] The federal government’s role in this decline was especially stark in 1983, when President Ronald Reagan’s Administration eliminated the USDA’s Office of Civil Rights Enforcement and Adjudication.[footnote]See Chris Kromm, The Real Story of Racism at the USDA, The Nation (July 23, 2010), https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/real-story-racism-usda/ [https:// perma.cc/72RY-CXN5] (“In 1983, President Reagan pushed through budget cuts that eliminated the USDA Office of Civil Rights—and officials admitted they ‘simply threw discrimination complaints in the trash without ever responding to or investigating them’ until 1996, when the office re-opened.”).[/footnote] The Office had already accumulated decades of complaints from Black farmers alleging racial discrimination by the Farmers Home Administration.[footnote]See Pigford v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82, 88 (D.D.C. 1999) (noting the massive backlog of complaints from Black farmers at the USDA due to the elimination of the USDA’s Office of Civil Rights).[/footnote]Even after its Office of Civil Rights closed, the USDA continued to ignore complaints for another fifteen years, with some reports of staff throwing uninvestigated grievances into the trash.[footnote]Id.[/footnote] The situation reached a breaking point in 1997 when Timothy Pigford filed a class action lawsuit against the USDA and then-Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman.[footnote]See Pigford , 185 F.R.D. at 86; April Simpson & Joe Yerardi, Can USDA’s Efforts on Equity Help Black Farmers Overcome ‘Toxic Debt’?, Ctr. for Pub. Integrity (Oct. 24, 2023), https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/the-heist/usda-equity-black-farmers-pigford-glickman-toxic-debt/ [https://perma.cc/49LJ-MW2Z].[/footnote] Pigford alleged that the USDA had systematically failed to address Black farmers’ civil rights complaints from 1983 to 1997 and had disproportionately denied or delayed their loan applications.[footnote]See Pigford , 185 F.R.D. at 86 (“The plaintiffs in this case allege . . . that the United States Department of Agriculture . . . willfully discriminated against them . . . on the basis of their race when it denied their applications for credit and/or benefit programs or delayed processing their applications . . . .”).[/footnote] This discrimination was not speculative; the federal government had acknowledged its mistreatment of Black farmers in official reports dating back to 1965.[footnote]See infra section II.A (discussing the Pigford cases).[/footnote] Pigford v. Glickman ultimately became a landmark civil rights settlement, allocating more than $1 billion to eligible claimants.[footnote]Proposed Consent Decree at 15, Pigford , 185 F.R.D. 82 (Nos. 97-1978, 98-1693) (outlining the details of the settlement); Jasmin Melvin, Black Farmers Win $ 1.25 Billion in Discrimination Suit, Reuters (Feb. 18, 2010), https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/black-farmers-win-125-billion-in-discrimination-suit-idUSTRE61H5XD/ [https://perma.cc/9MNC-7T4N].[/footnote] But the pursuit of justice was fraught. The sheer volume of claimants led Congress to expand the settlement in 2008 to $2.4 billion and allow late filers to seek recourse in federal court.[footnote]See Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-246, § 14012, 122 Stat. 1651, 2209–12.[/footnote] Even so, many Black farmers struggled to access relief, and for those who did, the compensation often fell short of addressing the deep-rooted injustices they had endured.[footnote]See Maia Foster & P.J. Austin, Rattlesnakes, Debt, and APRA § 1005: The Existential Crisis of American Black Farmers, 71 Duke L.J. Online 159, 166 (2022), https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=dlj_online [https://perma.cc/5XRF-PYL8] (“Despite $2.3 billion in Pigford payments, Black farmers have still not been made whole.” (citing Laura Reiley, Relief Bill Is Most Significant Legislation for Black Farmers Since Civil Rights Act, Experts Say, Wash. Post (Mar. 8, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/08/reparations-black-farmers-stimulus (on file with the Columbia Law Review ))).[/footnote] Today, fewer than fifty thousand Black farmers remain, comprising less than 2% of all farmers.[footnote]See Castro & Willingham, supra note 7 (“As of 2012, black farmers make up less than 2 percent of all farmers.”).[/footnote] Further, Black-owned farms represent just 0.4% of all U.S. farmland.[footnote]Id.[/footnote] This drastic decline reflects not only past discrimination but also the continued consolidation of power under the rise of modern agricultural oligarchy. One of the most significant barriers to equity today is the dominance of large agribusiness corporations that control key aspects of the food system, from seed production to meatpacking.[footnote]James M. MacDonald, Xiao Dong & Keith O. Fuglie, USDA, Concentration and Competition in U.S. Agribusiness 25–29 (2023), https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/106795/EIB-256.pdf?v=57453 [https://perma.cc/V2U8-AUAB].[/footnote] Such concentration undermines the ability of small-scale and independent farmers—particularly Black and Indigenous farmers—to compete, access markets, and secure fair prices. For example, just four companies—Cargill, JBS, National Beef, and Tyson Foods—control more than 85% of the beef processing industry in the United States,[footnote]The Truth About Tyson, Union Concerned Scientists (Mar. 17, 2022), https://www.ucs.org/resources/truth-about-tyson [https://perma.cc/8R2S-FD3X] (last updated Sep. 19, 2024); see also MacDonald et al., supra note 20, at iii.[/footnote] enabling price manipulation and contract farming models that systematically disadvantage independent producers.[footnote]See MacDonald et al., supra note 20, at 2–5, 27 (showing that rising market concentration and vertically coordinated contract systems leave independent producers with little pricing power and subject to integrator-controlled terms).[/footnote] This corporate dominance is reinforced through political influence. Large agribusinesses spend millions lobbying Congress and shaping federal agricultural policy.[footnote]See Agribusiness Lobbying , OpenSecrets (2024), https:// www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying?ind=A (on file with the Columbia Law Review ).[/footnote] Groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation have long opposed measures aimed at supporting small-scale and Black, Indigenous, and other historically marginalized farmers, including recent debt relief initiatives.[footnote]See, e.g., Madison McVan, The American Farm Bureau Federation Claims It’s the ‘Voice of Agriculture.’ These Groups Beg to Differ., Investigate Midwest (Feb. 8, 2022), https://investigatemidwest.org/2022/02/08/the-american-farm-bureau-federation-claims-its-the-voice-of-agriculture-these-groups-beg-to-differ/ [https://perma.cc/DA3M-SD2B] (discussing small-scale and alternative farmer groups’ perception of the American Farm Bureau Federation as favoring large agribusiness interests and opposing reforms sought by marginalized producers).[/footnote] Even more, oligarchic control extends to land acquisition. Corporate entities and billionaires have rapidly accumulated farmland across the country. Bill Gates, now among the nation’s largest private farmland owners, exemplifies a broader trend that further constrains land access for new and historically marginalized farmers.[footnote]Bill Gates, The Land Report, https://landreport.com/land-report-100/bill-gates [https://perma.cc/TF3V-XGJJ] (last visited Oct. 8, 2025) (“With almost 250,000 acres of highly productive farm ground spread out over 17 states, the co-founder of M[icrosoft] ranks as the nation’s largest private farmland owner.”).[/footnote] Such extreme concentration of economic and political power raises serious questions about the Constitution’s commitment to republican government and meaningful participation within and among the states. Despite these challenges, advocacy groups like the National Black Farmers Association, along with progressive leaders such as Senators Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren, continue to press for justice.[footnote]See, e.g., Press Release, Cory Booker, Booker, Warren, Gillibrand Announce Comprehensive Bill to Address the History of Discrimination in Federal Agricultural Policy (Nov. 19, 2020), https://www.booker.senate.gov/news/press/-booker-warren-gillibrand-announce-comprehensive-bill-to-address-the-history-of-discrimination-in-federal-agricultural-policy [https://perma.cc/5JS8-PVNY] [hereinafter Press Release, Cory Booker, Comprehensive Bill]; Press Release, Env’t Working Grp., National Black Farmers Association and EWG Applaud the Justice for Black Farmers Act (Nov. 19, 2020), https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/national-black-farmers-association-and-ewg-applaud-justice-black-farmers [https://perma.cc/U5NF-8FPL].[/footnote] In March 2021, President Joseph Biden took a significant step toward addressing these longstanding inequities through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).[footnote]See American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-2, 135 Stat. 4 (codified in scattered titles of the U.S.C.); see also Press Release, White House, President Biden Announces American Rescue Plan (Jan. 20, 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/legislation/2021/01/20/president-biden-announces-american-rescue-plan/ [https://perma.cc/3JWN-EHBZ].[/footnote] Echoing earlier Reconstruction-era efforts to disrupt Southern agricultural oligarchy, ARPA represented a renewed federal attempt to redistribute power within American agriculture. Section 1005 created the Farm Loan Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers program, allocating approximately $4 billion toward debt relief, technical assistance, business development support, and agricultural education at historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs).[footnote] American Rescue Plan Act § 1005, repealed by Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-169, § 22008, 136 Stat. 1818, 2023; id. § 1006, amended by Inflation Reduction Act § 22007.[/footnote] The Act also established an equity commission to examine the USDA’s history of discrimination, signaling a broader commitment to institutional reform.[footnote]American Rescue Plan Act § 1006 .[/footnote] Yet the debt relief initiative quickly faced opposition from conservatives due to its race- and ethnicity-based eligibility criteria. Section 1005 provided loans to “socially disadvantaged” farmers, which a related statute defined as members of groups “subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice.”[footnote]Id. § 1005 (repealed 2023); see also 7 U.S.C. § 2279(a)(6) (2018). Under the American Rescue Plan Act, “[t]he term ‘socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher’ has the meaning provided in section 2501(a) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(a)).” American Rescue Plan Act § 1005. Under the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, “[t]he term ‘socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher’ means a farmer or rancher who is a member of a socially disadvantaged group.” 7 U.S.C. § 2279(a)(5). “The term ‘socially disadvantaged group’ means a group whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities.” Id. § 2279(a)(6).[/footnote]Despite USDA clarification that this definition included all racial and ethnic groups,[footnote]The USDA has updated the website containing this information, but a web archive reveals the previous information provided to the public to answer the question, “Would you further explain the meaning of the ‘socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher’ designation? What are the criteria for meeting such a designation?” American Rescue Plan Debt Payments FAQ, USDA, https://web.archive.org/web/20210802115225/https://www.farmers.gov/loans/american-rescue-plan/faq (on file with the Columbia Law Review ) (last updated May 21, 2021). The USDA clarified that this designation was “not limited to” certain enumerated groups and that “[t]he Secretary of Agriculture [would] determine on a case-by-case basis whether additional groups qualify under this definition.” Id.[/footnote] White farmers in multiple states—from Florida to Illinois, Minnesota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, among others—filed lawsuits claiming constitutional violations.[footnote]See Carpenter v. Vilsack, No. 21-CV-0103-F, 2022 WL 20813305 (D. Wyo. Oct. 7, 2022); Rogers v. Vilsack, No. 1:21-cv-01779-DDD-SKC, 2022 WL 1037574, at *1 (D. Colo. Mar. 31, 2022); Miller v. Vilsack, No. 4:21-cv-0595-O, 2021 WL 6129207, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2021), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, No. 21-11271, 2022 WL 851782 (5th Cir. Mar. 22, 2022); Wynn v. Vilsack, No. 3:21-cv-514-MMH-LLL, 2021 WL 7501821, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2021); Kent v. Vilsack, No. 3:21-cv-540-NJR, 2021 WL 6139523, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 10, 2021); Dunlap v. Vilsack, No. 2:21-cv-00942-SU, 2021 WL 4955037, at *1–2 (D. Or. Sep. 21, 2021); Tiegs v. Vilsack, No. 3:21-cv-147, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218585, at *1–2 (D.N.D. Sep. 7, 2021); McKinney v. Vilsack, No. 2:21-CV-00212-RWS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218624, at *1–2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2021); Faust v. Vilsack, No. 21-C-548, 2021 WL 4295769, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 23, 2021); Joyner v. Vilsack, 1:21-cv-01089-STA-jay, 2021 WL 3699869, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 19, 2021); Holman v. Vilsack, 1:21-cv-01085-STA-jay, 2021 WL 3354169, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 2, 2021); Complaint for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief at 2, Nuest v. Vilsack, 21-cv-01572-NEB-LIB (D. Minn. filed July 7, 2021) (on file with the Columbia Law Review ).[/footnote] Several courts ruled that Congress had failed to justify its use of racial classifications and issued injunctions to halt the program.[footnote]See, e.g., Faust v. Vilsack, 519 F. Supp. 3d 470, 475–76 (E.D. Wis. 2021) (“Defendants point to statistical and anecdotal evidence of a history of discrimination within the agricultural industry. But Defendants cannot rely on a ‘generalized assertion that there has been past discrimination in an entire industry’ to establish a compelling interest.” (citations omitted) (quoting City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 498 (1989)) (citing Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order at 16–17, Faust , 519 F. Supp. 3d 470 )).[/footnote] In response, Congress repealed section 1005 in August 2022 and replaced it with a new debt relief program under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).[footnote]Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-169, § 22008, 136 Stat. 1818, 2023.[/footnote]The IRA substituted the term “distressed” for “socially disadvantaged,” shifting focus to borrowers whose agricultural operations were financially at risk.[footnote]See id. § 22006, 136 Stat. at 2021; Race-Based COVID-19 Farm Loan Forgiveness Denies Equal Treatment to Farmers: Wynn v. Vilsack , Pac. Legal Found., https://pacificlegal.org/case/farm-loan-forgiveness/ [https://perma.cc/P4WK-ZS85] (last visited Oct. 8, 2025).[/footnote] To address discrimination, the IRA allocated $2.2 billion in financial assistance to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners of any racial or ethnic background who had experienced USDA discrimination before January 1, 2021.[footnote]Inflation Reduction Act § 22007.[/footnote] Notably, the IRA broadened the scope of protected categories to include sex, religion, age, marital status, and disability, expanding the reach of federal civil rights remedies beyond racial or ethnic discrimination alone.[footnote]See Press Release, USDA, USDA Reminds Producers of Upcoming Discrimination Financial Assistance Program Deadline (Jan. 8, 2024), https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2024/01/08/usda-reminds-producers-upcoming-discrimination-financial-assistance-program-deadline [https://perma.cc/9P2G-N3QQ] (referencing the protected categories in explaining the Act).[/footnote] The repeal of section 1005 and the enactment of the IRA reignited debates over race-conscious policymaking. Critics argued that the repeal validated their claim that section 1005 was unlawful and that government benefits should not depend on race.[footnote]Alan Rappeport, Climate and Tax Bill Rewrites Embattled Black Farmer Relief Program, N.Y. Times (Aug. 12, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/12/business/economy/inflation-reduction-act-black-farmers.html (on file with the Columbia Law Review ) (“Generally speaking, our view is that you can’t condition government benefits on the basis of race . . . .” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Rick M. Esenberg, President, Wis. Inst. for L. & Liberty)).[/footnote] Others described President Biden’s initial equity-focused program as political opportunism, accusing him of playing the “race card” without a public mandate.[footnote]George R. La Noue, The Race Card in ARPA’s Food Supply Deck, 22 Federalist Soc’y Rev. 184, 184 (2021) (arguing that the Small Business Administration prioritized women, racial minorities, and veterans in its fund dispersal guidelines when it could have defined its grant priorities in other ways); Jason Smith, Opinion, One Year Later: Why Biden’s ‘American Rescue’ Failed, Wash. Exam’r (Mar. 15, 2022), https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/one-year-later-why-bidens-american-rescue-failed (on file with the Columbia Law Review ) (citing a survey result and concluding that “only 21% of voters believe the law has helped them, whereas 29% say it has left them worse off”).[/footnote] Wynn v. Vilsack , which resulted in a preliminary injunction against the original debt relief program, illustrates the broader tension between racial justice initiatives and constitutional doctrines of equal protection.[footnote]545 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (M.D. Fla. 2021); see also infra section III.B (discussing the Wynn case).[/footnote] The decision also highlights the limits of “colorblind constitutionalism,”[footnote]The idea of colorblind constitutionalism originates with Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in the landmark 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson , in which he stated: “Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” 163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896); see also Malik Edwards & William A. Darity, Jr., Why Color-Blind Solutions Won’t Solve the Racial Wealth Gap: How We Can Overcome the Constitutional Hurdles to Race Conscious Remedies in Addressing the Wealth Gap, 110 Ky. L.J. 769, 771 (2022) (“The Court’s apparent failure to appreciate the potential of racialized effects in seemingly race-neutral policies, and the federal role in these policies’ implementation, has limited the fortitude to use race in creating remedies.”); Goldburn P. Maynard, Jr., Biden’s Gambit: Advancing Racial Equity While Relying on a Race-Neutral Tax Code, 131 Yale L.J. Forum 656, 673 (2022), https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/F7.MaynardFinalDraftWEB_jx79r4rp.pdf [https://perma.cc/7ZVV-TK63] (“[C]ourts have tightened the reins on the use of any racial classifications, regardless of purpose. Whether they are pernicious or meant to ameliorate discrimination, such policies are treated with suspicion.”).[/footnote] which, though seemingly aligned with equal protection principles, often fails to grapple with the enduring effects of historical discrimination and systemic racism.[footnote]See, e.g., Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 143 S. Ct. 2141, 2173 (2023) (rejecting consideration of race in college admissions despite arguments about ongoing effects of historical discrimination); Darren Lenard Hutchinson, Undignified: The Supreme Court, Racial Justice, and Dignity Claims, 69 Fla. L. Rev. 1, 15 (2017) (“The rigid application of the colorblindness doctrine impedes race-based state action implemented to remedy the harmful consequences of historical and present-day discrimination.”).[/footnote] This tension poses ongoing challenges for policymakers and advocates seeking to dismantle the structural barriers confronting Black farmers and other marginalized agricultural communities. As the United States continues to grapple with these issues, the USDA Equity Commission, established in 2021, marks an important step toward a more comprehensive response to racial inequities in agriculture.[footnote]American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-2, § 1006, 135 Stat. 4, 13–14; see also Exec. Order No. 13,985, 86 Fed. Reg. 7009 (laying out a foundational commitment to advancing equity).[/footnote] The Commission’s 2024 Final Report offers valuable insights into the complex nature of discrimination in agriculture and recommends systemic reforms beyond individualized remedies.[footnote]USDA Equity Comm’n, Final Report 8–9 (2024), https://www.farmaid.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/usda_equity_commission_final_report-2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/8VY5-CCXC].[/footnote] By blending race-conscious and class-based strategies, the Commission offers a potential path forward for addressing racial disparities while navigating the legal and political constraints surrounding race-based programs. This Essay contributes to that ongoing dialogue by examining the historical, legal, and policy dimensions of racial injustice in American agriculture, and situating those inequities within the enduring persistence of oligarchic power since the antebellum era. This Essay proceeds as follows. Part I traces the ideological foundations of agricultural oligarchy, showing how the systematic subjugation of Black farmers through exploitation, expropriation, and erasure has been essential to maintaining concentrated agricultural power from slavery to the present. It reveals how agricultural oligarchy has sustained itself not only through economic control but also by embedding White supremacist ideology so deeply within agricultural institutions that concentrated power appears natural rather than constructed. Part II analyzes the major legal and legislative efforts undertaken to redress historical injustices against Black farmers, proceeding chronologically through three phases: the Pigford litigation, recent legislative initiatives including the Justice for Black Farmers Act and the American Rescue Plan Act debt relief program, and the political and legal resistance these efforts have encountered. Together, these developments reveal both meaningful progress and the enduring national ambivalence about race-conscious remedies. Part III examines how colorblind constitutionalism constrains congressional authority to implement race-conscious relief programs, using Wynn v. Vilsack as a key case study. It demonstrates how contemporary equal protection jurisprudence may paradoxically entrench, rather than dismantle, systems of racial hierarchy and economic concentration, highlighting the complex legal terrain in which race-based agricultural remedies must operate. Part IV draws lessons from the USDA Equity Commission’s 2024 report and its subsequent dismantling under the Trump Administration to identify principles for designing more resilient equity initiatives. It argues that the systematic elimination of equity programs exposes the vulnerability of reform efforts to oligarchic capture, while also offering guidance for crafting legislative and policy interventions capable of withstanding concentrated economic and political opposition. Taken together, this Essay reveals the deep-rooted connection between race, agriculture, and systemic injustice in America. It highlights how the concentration of agricultural power within a small elite group, from the plantation era to the present, has produced and perpetuated racial and economic inequities. Despite recent legislative reforms, the modern agricultural oligarchy continues to reinforce structural barriers that limit opportunities for Black farmers and reproduce cycles of exclusion and disempowerment. These struggles reflect broader patterns of racial capitalism, economic inequality, and rural disinvestment. Meaningful efforts to advance racial equity in agriculture must therefore confront the persistent concentration of power and resources within the sector to build a more just and equitable society for all Americans.

Agriculture

THE SPIRIT OF OLIGARCHY IN AMERICAN AGRICULTURE

CLIMATE-SMART AGRICULTURE CERTIFICATION: A CALL FOR FEDERAL ACTION