In recent weeks, the U.S. Department of Justice has moved to terminate or seek early termination of several redlining-related consent orders with banks, citing substantial compliance with the terms of the original settlements. These actions mark a shift in approach and have sparked conversation across the financial and regulatory landscape.
Key updates include:
-
Lakeland Bank (New Jersey) – The DOJ filed a motion on May 28, 2025, to end its 2022 redlining consent order over two years early. The original settlement required $12 million in loan subsidies, plus $1.15 million for outreach and community partnerships. While DOJ stated the bank had achieved substantial compliance, housing advocates oppose the move, arguing the full term should be honored.
-
Trustmark National Bank (Mississippi) – The DOJ and CFPB jointly requested termination of a 2021 order that included $5 million in penalties and $3.85 million in subsidy funds. Courts approved the motion, stating the terms had been fully met.
-
Ameris Bank, Patriot Bank, Cadence Bank, and Trident Mortgage – Federal courts granted early termination of consent orders with each, with DOJ asserting that all obligations were satisfied.
-
ESSA Bank & Trust (Pennsylvania) – DOJ’s effort to terminate this order is being challenged by advocacy groups, who argue the remedial obligations remain ongoing and necessary.
Of the 15 redlining settlements secured under the prior administration, 10 remain active, while others are under review. DOJ’s actions suggest a trend toward ending oversight where monetary and programmatic benchmarks have been fulfilled.
Some housing groups argue that premature termination could weaken the enforcement of fair lending laws. Courts are now considering these concerns, particularly in the contested Lakeland Bank case, where amicus briefs have been filed.
The broader question emerging from these moves is simple: When is a bank truly in compliance, and how long should federal oversight continue once settlement terms have been met?