As previously reported, last year the Trump Administration filed a motion in the federal district court for the district of New Jersey to terminate the redlining consent order with Lakeland Bank that was entered into in September 2022 and provided for a five-year term. The redlining consent order was part of the Justice Department focus on redlining during the Biden Administration. The Trump Administration in 2025 sought the early termination of various redlining consent orders, and the unwinding of one redlining consent order, with mixed results. A New Jersey district court recently denied the government’s motion for the early termination of the Lakeland Bank consent order without prejudice.

Initially, the Trump Administration was successful in obtaining federal district court approval for the early termination of the redlining consent order against Trustmark Bank, which consent order was entered into at the time the Biden era Justice Department launched its initiative to combat redlining. The Administration then obtained federal district court approvals for the early terminations of the redlining consent orders against Evolve Bank and Trust, Ameris Bank and Patriot Bank.

However, community groups began to oppose the motions for early termination. A court denied the government’s motion seeking the early termination of the redlining consent order against Essa Bank. That motion was opposed by the National Fair Housing Alliance, the Housing Equality Center of Pennsylvania and POWER Interfaith.

The Trump Administration also filed a motion seeking to unwind the redlining consent order against Townstone Financial. The motion was opposed by fourteen nonprofit organizations focused on fair housing and consumer protection. A federal district court denied the motion.

The government’s motion seeking early termination of the Lakeland Bank consent order was opposed by the National Fair Housing Alliance, the Housing Equality Center of Pennsylvania, and the New Jersey Citizen Action Education Fund. As it did in other motions seeking early termination of redlining consent orders, the government argued that Lakeland Bank had substantially complied with the consent order. In response to that argument, the New Jersey district court stated “Lakeland’s existing compliance—at least on the current record—does not present a change in condition that can justify termination of the consent order.” Citing the federal district court’s decision denying the early termination of the Essa Bank consent order, the New Jersey district court added that “[a]lthough a party’s substantial performance (i.e., substantial compliance) with a consent order can justify its termination, Lakeland’s ‘partial satisfaction of the [c]onsent [o]rder does not’ mean that the bank has substantially performed its obligations under the order.” The court addressed various obligations of Lakeland Bank under the consent order, which the court believed had not been substantially satisfied. In particular, the court stated that the consent order requires the bank to:

• Spend $150,000 annually “on advertising, outreach, consumer financial education, and credit counseling in the Newark Lending Area,” and that there is over a year left in the term of the order.
• Establish a $12 million loan subsidy fund “to increase credit for home mortgage loans, home improvement loans, and home refinance loans for consumers applying for loans in majority-Black and Hispanic census tracts in its Newark Lending Area,” and that approximately 65% of the fund was disbursed.
• Establish two branches in the Newark area, and that while the bank has established the branches the consent order requires that the bank must maintain them for the term of the consent order.