A decade ago, black farmers won $1 billion from the federal government to make up for years of discriminatory lending practices.
Today, Hispanic farmers are still waiting for their reparations from the government.
Now Hispanic farmers are accusing President Obama of ignoring their plight, even while pledging to give black farmers this year an additional $1.25 billion.
Stephen Hill, the head attorney for the Hispanic farmers, said Obama's announcement in May "added insult to injury."
"It smacks of disrespect, frankly," he told HispanicBusines.com.
But now, after years of legal wrangling, while Hispanic family farms have gone out of business, the issue has gained new prominence on a national stage, and uncovered a little-known pattern of discrimination by the U.S. government.
Known as Garcia v. Vilsack, the nine-year-old case is approaching a turning point, and will gear up again with a hearing next month.
The suit pertains directly to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's long history of discrimination, which is so well documented that not even the agency disputes it.
One Man's Story
Among the purported victims is Bobby Ortega of New Mexico.
Nineteen years ago, when he was just 21, Ortega -- who grew up working on his father's farm -- landed a loan for promising young farmers from the USDA to farm 10 acres on leased land.
Ortega's first year went so well that the next year his farm grew to 100 acres.
Ortega paid off both loans with ease.
"On my second year, I had a loan officer tell me, 'Bobby, you're one of the few that has been able to pay us back,'" he remembers.
The next year he decided to expand to 1,000 acres. This required purchasing more equipment, and receiving another loan.
At this point, things began to go wrong.
For some reason, months went by and Ortega's USDA loan never came. This upset the landlords, who wanted their lease payments.
Meanwhile, many of Ortega's white farmer friends had received their loans long ago. When Ortega asked the USDA for a status update, employees told him the paperwork was filled out incorrectly. He came in to re-do it, but still the loan didn't come. When he asked about it again, employees told him he hadn't put his signature on a document.
By the time the money finally arrived, it was too late: the loan was five months overdue and the landlords had already leased the land to another farmer.
"I lost the farm, and only had so much time to pay back the loan," Ortega said. "They said: 'That's your problem.'"
To pay off the crushing debt, Ortega cashed in his life insurance, as well as his daughter's college savings. He also used credit cards.
Today -- nearly two decades later -- he works on his father's farm growing cotton, alfalfa and pecans. To this day, he is still paying back the credit card company.
Hill said Ortega's experience has been all-too common.
"If you need assistance, they won't provide assistance," he said. "When you get the paperwork in, they'll find something else wrong with it."
USDA Acknowledges Discrimination
The case is heating up at a time when the USDA is trying to atone for its civil-rights sins of the past.
In January, Tom Vilsack, the new leader of the USDA, openly acknowledged the department's tarnished civil-rights record during his confirmation hearing.
"The time has come for the department to be a department of all people, by working hard to resolve outstanding civil rights claims," he said. "We need to close this chapter of the past and look forward."
