Robert Holman v. Thomas Vilsack

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: 23-5493
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0082n.06

No. 23-5493

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

) FILED ROBERT HOLMAN, Feb 11, 2026 ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT BROOKE ROLLINS, in her official capacity as ) COURT FOR THE WESTERN Secretary of the United States Department of ) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Agriculture; ZACH DUCHENEAUX, in his official ) capacity as Administrator of the Farm Service ) OPINION Agency, ) Defendants-Appellees. )

Before: STRANCH, LARSEN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Robert Holman obtained a preliminary injunction pausing a debt-relief

program created by Congress for “socially disadvantaged” farmers and ranchers. After Holman

obtained a preliminary injunction, Congress repealed the program. Holman seeks fees associated

with the litigation under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The district court denied the fee request

because Holman was not a “prevailing party” under the Act. Holman appeals. We AFFIRM.

I.

Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act authorized the Secretary of the United

States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to “provide a payment in an amount up to 120 percent

of the outstanding indebtedness of each socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher as of January 1,

2021, to pay off [direct and guaranteed farm loans].” Pub. L. No. 117-2, § 1005(a)(2) (2021).

USDA defined “socially disadvantaged” based on race, extending debt relief to Black, American No. 23-5493, Holman v. Rollins

Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic, Asian, or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander farmers and ranchers, with

no consideration of need. 86 Fed. Reg. 28,329, 28,330 (May 26, 2021). Holman, who does not

fall into any of the above racial categories, sued and obtained a preliminary injunction, temporarily

enjoining the implementation of the debt-relief program. Congress then repealed Section 1005

through the Inflation Reduction Act. Pub. L. No. 117-169, § 22008 (2022). That mooted the case,

and the parties stipulated to dismissal.

Holman then moved for fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28

U.S.C. § 2412. Under that statute, a “prevailing party” in a civil case against the United States is

entitled to fees and costs unless the government’s position was “substantially justified” or “special

circumstances make an award unjust.” Id. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The district court denied Holman’s

motion because he was not a “prevailing party” under the EAJA. Holman v. Vilsack, 2023 WL

2776733, at *2 n.2, *4 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 4, 2023). Holman appealed. This panel affirmed, with

one judge dissenting. See Holman v. Vilsack, 117 F.4th 906, 909 (6th Cir. 2024); id. at 917 (Larsen,

J., dissenting). Holman petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the petition,

vacated this court’s judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Lackey v. Stinnie, 604

U.S. 192 (2025). See Holman v. Rollins, -- S. Ct. --, 2025 WL 3620423, at *1 (2025) (mem.).

II.

In Lackey, the Supreme Court concluded that obtaining a preliminary injunction does not

“confer prevailing party status” on a party for attorneys’ fees purposes. 604 U.S. at 201.

“[P]reliminary injunctions do not conclusively resolve the rights of parties on the merits . . . .” Id.

So “[a] plaintiff who secures a preliminary injunction has achieved only temporary success at an

intermediary stage of the suit,” and “[i]t cannot yet be said that he will ultimately prevail when the

matter is finally set to rest or that he will have successfully maintained his claim at the end.” Id.

-2- No. 23-5493, Holman v. Rollins

(citation modified). And, important for this case, “external events that render a dispute moot do

not convert a temporary order designed to preserve the status of the parties into a conclusive

adjudication of their rights.” Id.

Lackey fully resolves Holman’s appeal. Holman obtained a preliminary injunction

temporarily enjoining the implementation of the challenged program. That injunction did not

“conclusively resolve the rights of the parties on the merits.” Id. Then, while the case was still

proceeding, Congress repealed the program and mooted the case. This “external event[]” did not

convert Holman’s temporary relief into an adjudication of the merits. See id. at 201, 203.

Accordingly, Holman is not a “prevailing party” under the EAJA, id. at 201, and he is not entitled

to fees.

***

We AFFIRM.

-3-