Democratic AGs file lawsuit to prevent USDA from excluding certain immigrants from SNAP benefits

A group of 21 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on Wednesday, aiming to halt new guidance that bars certain immigrants, including refugees and asylees, from receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, leading the coalition of Democratic attorneys general, criticized the move, stating that the administration is unlawfully cutting off benefits for tens of thousands of lawful permanent residents. The federal governments disturbing attempt to deny food to families and children continues, James said. USDA cannot lawfully remove entire populations from the SNAP program, and no one should go hungry due to how they arrived in the United States.

The lawsuit includes attorneys general from Washington, D.C., and the states of Oregon, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

On October 31, the USDA issued guidance tightening SNAP eligibility, following the rollbacks outlined in President Donald Trumps domestic policy law enacted earlier this year. The attorneys general argue that the guidance exceeds legal authority, as it would permanently deny food stamps to individuals admitted under humanitarian protection programs, even if they later become lawful residents.

The lawsuit notes that some immigrant categories are exempt from the five-year waiting period required for lawful permanent residents to qualify for SNAP. The problem is that the guidance identifies some, but not all, conditions allowing immediate SNAP eligibility, the filing states. It leaves out key humanitarian groups, including refugees and asylees.

Exempt groups not mentioned in the guidance include certain Afghan and Ukrainian parolees, Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrants (SIV), and victims of severe human trafficking. The attorneys general warn that implementing the guidance could disrupt SNAP nationwide and impose significant financial burdens on states responsible for potential fines.

Critics also noted that USDA began the 120-day exclusion period for the guidance on the date Trumps policy law took effect, rather than when the guidance was released to states. The period ended November 1, just one day after states received the new instructions.

The lawsuit requests that a federal judge in Oregon block the USDA guidance from taking effect. A USDA spokesperson declined to comment on the pending litigation.

Before the lawsuit, James and other attorneys general requested the USDA to revise the guidance and clarify SNAP eligibility, but the agency did not respond, according to the statement. The filing follows a recent dismissal of an indictment against James in Virginia, highlighting ongoing political tensions.

This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.

Analysis: The USDA’s SNAP Guidance and Its Legal Implications

The recent lawsuit filed by 21 state attorneys general against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) represents a significant legal challenge to the federal government's tightening of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility. Led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, the lawsuit seeks to prevent the implementation of new USDA guidelines that would bar certain immigrant populations, including refugees and asylees, from accessing food assistance programs.

The key issue at hand is whether the USDA has overstepped its legal authority in restricting SNAP benefits for specific immigrant groups. The guidance issued by the USDA on October 31, following changes introduced by the Trump administration earlier this year, seems to violate established protections for some groups. Critics, including the coalition of attorneys general, argue that the guidance improperly limits the eligibility of individuals who, though they may have entered the U.S. under humanitarian programs, later become lawful residents.

One of the central points of contention is the exclusion of certain humanitarian groups, such as Afghan and Ukrainian parolees, Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrants, and victims of severe human trafficking, from SNAP eligibility. This exclusion could have wide-reaching consequences, affecting not only the individuals directly involved but also the financial stability of state programs that might bear the cost of these exclusions.

The lawsuit also highlights procedural concerns, such as the timing of the 120-day exclusion period, which critics argue began prematurely, just one day before states received the official guidance. This may raise questions about the transparency and fairness of the USDA’s approach in rolling out the new rules.

As the case progresses, the broader implications for immigrant rights and food security in the U.S. remain to be seen. The outcome of this lawsuit will likely have a lasting impact on both the SNAP program and the treatment of immigrants in the U.S. legal framework. It’s a reminder that the intersection of immigration policy and public assistance programs remains a volatile area of American law.

Sources:

• Democratic attorneys general sue to block USDA guidance that makes some immigrants ineligible for SNAP benefits