JUST Act Creates Senate-Confirmed Civil Rights Chief at USDA, Shifts Appeals Burden to Government

The JUST Act of 2025, or the Just USDA Standards and Transparency Act, is a major overhaul of how the Department of Agriculture handles civil rights issues, focusing heavily on accountability and fairness for the people who use its programs—think farmers, ranchers, and families relying on food assistance. At its core, the bill does two big things: it mandates serious consequences for USDA employees who commit misconduct and it builds a completely new, high-level civil rights enforcement structure within the agency.

The New Sheriff in Town: Accountability and Authority

Section 3 mandates the creation of a new, Senate-confirmed position: the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Civil Rights. This isn't just a title change; this person will have comprehensive oversight over all civil rights compliance across every single USDA agency and program. To back up this new power, Section 3 also creates an independent Office of Legal Advisor for Civil Rights. Crucially, this new legal office is only allowed to advise the Assistant Secretary and investigate complaints; it is explicitly barred from defending the USDA against discrimination claims. This is a significant structural change designed to prevent internal conflicts of interest and ensure that legal advice prioritizes compliance over defense.

Section 2 backs this up with teeth, requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to take “corrective action” against any employee—from the lowest staffer to a high-ranking official—found to have committed misconduct. This misconduct isn't just discrimination; it includes things like failing to give program applicants a required receipt for service, providing incorrect information, or intentionally delaying applications. The corrective actions can range from a formal reprimand all the way up to removal from Federal service. For the average person interacting with a USDA office, this means that if a staffer is giving you the runaround or treating you unfairly based on protected status, there’s now a clearer, mandatory process for holding them accountable.

Clearing the Path for Fair Relief

One of the most important changes for farmers and ranchers is found in Section 4, which deals with equitable relief. The new Assistant Secretary is granted direct authority to grant relief to participants who file a civil rights program complaint—especially those involving farm loans. This decision can be made without needing approval from any other USDA officer. For a farmer who believes they were unfairly denied a loan due to discrimination, this provision cuts through layers of bureaucracy, creating a direct path to a high-level official who can actually fix the problem. The only person who can overturn this decision is the Secretary of Agriculture, concentrating significant power in the new Assistant Secretary’s office.

Section 5 establishes yet another independent layer of protection: the Office of the Civil Rights Ombudsperson. This Ombudsperson will be a senior official whose sole job is to help program participants navigate the civil rights review and appeals process. Think of them as a dedicated guide and advocate, required to report findings and recommendations directly to Congress annually. This office is designed to be completely independent of the rest of the Department, ensuring that people have a neutral place to turn when they feel lost in the system.

The Burden of Proof: Government Must Prove Itself Right

Perhaps the most significant procedural change for anyone appealing a USDA decision is found in Section 6. It amends the rules for hearings before the National Appeals Division (NAD) by shifting the burden of proof. Currently, if you appeal an adverse decision, you usually have to prove the agency was wrong. Under the JUST Act, the USDA agency that made the original decision is now required to prove, with “substantial evidence,” that their decision was actually correct. This is a massive shift. For a small business owner or a farmer challenging a payment decision, this means the government can no longer simply rely on technicalities; they must bring solid proof to the table to defend their action, leveling the playing field considerably in administrative appeals.