SNAP provides vital support to millions of Americans, but a recent policy shift threatened to undermine this program. The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of 20 state attorneys general, has highlighted tensions over the Trump administration’s guidance that altered eligibility rules for lawful permanent residents. While the administration initially demanded an immediate enforcement deadline, the court’s ruling offers a crucial reprieve for states and residents alike.
Legal Battle Over SNAP Eligibility
The legal dispute centers on changes made to SNAP eligibility for lawful permanent residents, including refugees and asylum-seekers. Under the Trump administration’s new guidance issued in late October, individuals who had entered the U.S. as refugees or asylum-seekers and later obtained legal status could be permanently ineligible for SNAP benefits. This would have impacted hundreds of thousands of individuals who rely on the program to purchase groceries.
A coalition of 20 state attorneys general quickly took action, filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which oversees the program. The states argued that the guidance was not only unjust but also imposed unreasonable demands on them. According to Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, the USDA’s timeline for implementing the changes was “unlawful,” leaving states scrambling to adjust their eligibility systems in a short period. The states also pointed out that the new rules lacked the legally required 120-day grace period for implementation.
On December 10, the USDA issued new guidance reversing the controversial stance on eligibility, reaffirming that all lawful permanent residents, including former refugees and asylum-seekers, would still be eligible for SNAP benefits. Despite this change, the department maintained that states were expected to begin compliance with the rule immediately, sparking further legal challenges from the states.
Judge Rules in Favor of States, Extends Compliance Deadline
U.S. District Judge Michael Simon Kasubhai sided with the states, agreeing that the USDA’s original position was unlawful and would cause irreparable harm to state budgets if states were forced to comply with the initial deadline. The judge emphasized that the USDA’s guidance was inconsistent with past practices and that the abrupt implementation timeline had caused unnecessary confusion.
As a result, the court extended the compliance grace period, allowing states until April 9, 2026, to fully implement the changes. This decision not only provides relief to the states but also prevents the potentially catastrophic financial penalties that could have resulted from noncompliance.
The ruling was met with praise from state leaders, who argued that the administration’s actions threatened critical food assistance programs during the holiday season. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown called the USDA’s original timeline “illegal” and criticized the administration for attempting to “illegally take SNAP benefits from green card holders” despite their lawful status. Rayfield echoed these concerns, stating that the disruption caused by the threat of fines had created “needless uncertainty” for those relying on the program.
Implications for SNAP and Low-Income Families
This ruling is significant not only for the legal precedent it sets but also for its impact on millions of low-income Americans. SNAP, which serves approximately 42 million individuals nationwide, is essential in providing food assistance to those who are struggling to make ends meet. The program has been especially crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent economic downturn.
State officials have argued that any changes to eligibility rules should be carefully implemented to avoid harming vulnerable populations, including children, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. With the extension of the compliance deadline, states now have more time to adjust their systems without facing the threat of severe financial penalties. This gives them the necessary breathing room to ensure that SNAP continues to serve its intended purpose, helping those in need put food on the table.
The White House and USDA have not yet commented on the judge’s decision, but this legal setback represents a clear challenge to the administration’s push to tighten SNAP eligibility requirements. As the case continues, the outcome may shape future debates over the future of the program and how best to support low-income families across the country.
