Dive Brief:
- Twenty-one states and Washington, D.C. filed a lawsuit in late November against the USDA, alleging that the department’s new guidance around SNAP eligibility unlawfully excludes refugees and asylum recipients.
- The coalition of the Democrat-led states argued that the new guidance would overly burden states with financial penalties if they don’t immediately implement the restrictions.
- The lawsuit marks the latest legal battle between Democrat-led states and the USDA as the Trump administration seeks to make a flurry of changes to SNAP.
Dive Insight:
On Oct. 31, the USDA issued new guidance to state SNAP agencies saying that SNAP eligibility for certain non-citizen groups, including refugees and asylum recipients, can’t participate in the food assistance program due to changes under the tax law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, according to the lawsuit.
That legislation, which Trump signed in July, includes $186 billion in SNAP cuts over 10 years, mainly stemming from tightened eligibility requirements, according to the National Grocers Association.
The states' lawsuit claims that the memo’s directives are “contrary to law and capricious” because they exclude lawful permanent residents who are eligible for SNAP. While SNAP primarily benefits U.S. citizens, the program is available to “some groups of non-citizens who are lawfully in the United States,” the lawsuit says.
“Federal law is clear that refugees, asylees, humanitarian parolees, individuals whose deportation has been withheld, and other humanitarian entrants become eligible for SNAP once they obtain their green cards and meet standard program requirements,” according to the office of the New York attorney general, which is signed on to the lawsuit. “USDA’s memo attempts to rewrite those rules.”
In New York, complying with USDA’s guidance would force the state to cut off SNAP benefits for as many as 35,000 lawful permanent residents. The state could face fines of up to $1.2 billion if it doesn’t comply with the order, according to the state’s attorney general.
The states are asking the court to strike down the guidance.
A USDA spokesperson said the department won’t comment on pending litigation.
Joining New York in the lawsuit are attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and Washington, D.C.
The SNAP program has become a litigious issue in recent months, with Democrat-led states challenging sweeping changes by the Trump administration. At the end of October, 25 states and Washington, D.C., sued the Trump administration over the USDA’s plan to halt SNAP benefits for November, resulting in a legal battle over whether the agency would temporarily cover the food program’s lapsed funding.
In July, a group of states also brought a lawsuit against the USDA arguing that the agency is illegally demanding personal and sensitive information about millions of SNAP participants.
Other changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill include expanding SNAP eligibility work requirements and requiring states starting in fiscal 2027 to pay 75% of SNAP administration costs instead of half. In fiscal 2028, states will also have to pay for SNAP benefits depending on their “error rate.”
