States Challenge Trump Administration over SNAP Eligibility Restrictions
A coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging new USDA guidance that classifies certain immigrants as permanently ineligible for SNAP benefits. The guidance, issued under the GOP-led Big Beautiful Bill, has been criticized for misapplying eligibility rules, particularly affecting refugees and asylum seekers who have obtained lawful permanent residency. The lawsuit seeks emergency relief to block the guidance, which states argue risks destabilizing SNAP and depriving eligible individuals of food assistance.
States argue that the guidance misclassifies lawfully present immigrants as ‘not eligible’ when the law says they are eligible once they become lawful permanent residents. California Attorney General Rob Bonta described the guidance as reading ‘like someone took notes from the Grinch,’ highlighting the agency’s apparent disregard for existing regulations. The new USDA memo is accused of rewriting rules without congressional approval, potentially cutting off food assistance for people who are fully eligible under the law.
The administration’s move has sparked widespread concern over the potential impact on food security for millions of Americans, particularly those in low-income communities. Advocacy groups have expressed alarm over the guidance’s abrupt implementation, noting that states had only one day to comply after the guidance was released on October 31. This short timeframe has raised questions about the feasibility of enforcing the new rules, especially for states with limited resources to adjust their programs accordingly.
The lawsuit, filed in Oregon, seeks to block the USDA’s guidance as a violation of the law and a threat to the stability of the SNAP program. It warns that the patchwork system created by the guidance could lead to financial penalties for states that fail to comply. Attorneys general from across the country are united in their criticism of the administration’s approach, arguing that the guidance undermines the integrity of the SNAP program and puts millions of people at risk of losing essential assistance.
With the SNAP program serving over 40 million Americans monthly, the potential impact of the new guidelines is significant. The administration’s decision to roll out the changes so quickly has drawn additional scrutiny, with critics pointing to the lack of transparency and consultation in the process. The case may set a precedent for how future regulatory changes are implemented and enforced, particularly in the context of federal aid programs.
As the legal battle unfolds, the focus remains on the broader implications for food access and the rights of immigrants in the United States. Advocacy groups continue to call for urgent action to ensure that eligible individuals are not left without access to critical support. The outcome of this lawsuit could reshape the landscape of SNAP eligibility and highlight the ongoing challenges in balancing immigration policy with social welfare programs.