A coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general is challenging the Trump administration over new guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that they argue unjustly denies many immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, access to crucial anti-hunger benefits. This lawsuit, filed in Eugene, Oregon, centers on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the newly introduced eligibility criteria. The attorneys general contend that the USDA’s guidelines go beyond the intended scope of a recent bipartisan spending bill, leading to incorrect classifications of certain individuals as “permanently ineligible” for assistance.
The new USDA guidance generated by a memo has significant implications for potentially thousands of immigrants. The attorneys general assert that this misinterpretation of eligibility is harmful and needs to be addressed swiftly to ensure that those who qualify receive the necessary support. As California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated, the guidance “threatens to destabilize SNAP nationwide” and could obstruct food access for families who have followed the legal pathways to residency. This situation is worrying, considering SNAP’s critical role in providing food aid to around 40 million Americans each month.
According to the attorneys general, the USDA’s new criteria misclassifies groups such as “refugees, asylees, humanitarian parolees, and individuals whose deportation has been withheld” as ineligible when, in fact, the law allows them access to benefits once they obtain lawful permanent resident status. Bonta emphasized the absurdity of the criteria, calling it a blatant misapplication of the agency’s own regulations. He quipped that the guidance “reads like someone took notes from the Grinch,” underscoring the gravity of the issue.
The implications of this guidance extend well beyond legal definitions. The lawsuit argues that the erroneous classifications could affect thousands of individuals, particularly noting that over 30,000 residents in New York may be impacted. The attorneys general are seeking immediate judicial relief to halt the implementation of the USDA’s guidance, warning that its delay could lead to financial penalties for states and an overall destabilization of the program.
This legal action highlights profound concerns over the USDA’s decision to adopt narrower eligibility criteria shortly after the spending bill was signed into law. The memo’s timing and requirements left states with practically no time to adapt to the changes, creating a chaotic environment. Bonta pointed out that this rushed implementation, coming just one day after the guidance was published, imposes undue stress on state systems that may not be prepared for such abrupt policy shifts. The attorneys general are right to emphasize that these errors are not just administrative but could leave many families hungry when the law provides for their support.
This lawsuit represents a crucial moment in the ongoing debate over immigration policy and its effects on essential social services. The resolution of this issue may set important precedents concerning eligibility and access to benefits for immigrant communities, underscoring the need for clarity and adherence to existing laws. The attorneys general are determined to protect the well-being of families who depend on SNAP, striving for justice in a system that should work for all lawful residents.
"*" indicates required fields
