...
By Aliss Higham
Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Attorneys general from 21 states are suing the Trump administration over guidance that they say unlawfully blocks some legal immigrants from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
Newsweek has contacted the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for comment via email.
Why It Matters
The GOP's tax and spending package, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law in July, tightens SNAP eligibility for certain immigrants. The legislation restricts access to SNAP, the country's largest anti-hunger initiative, although some lawfully present immigrants may still apply after a five-year waiting period.
Read More on News
On October 31, the USDA, which oversees SNAP, issued guidance that said legal permanent residents, including individuals who entered the U.S. as refugees or asylum seekers, were permanently barred from receiving SNAP benefits. Last week, the states asked the USDA to clarify the guidance.
...
What To Know
Section 10108 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act changed the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to bar people who enter the U.S. as refugees, asylees or humanitarian parolees from receiving SNAP.
The states have argued that the law does not block those same individuals from becoming eligible later if they obtain lawful permanent resident status.
The USDA memo came out almost four months after the law took effect and became binding the next day—a Saturday—giving states almost no time to put the guidance in place, the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a news release on Wednesday.
"In the memo, USDA incorrectly states that several categories of immigrants, including legal permanent residents who were admitted as refugees, people granted asylum, and individuals brought to safety through humanitarian parole programs, are categorically 'not eligible' for SNAP," the news release said.
The states also said the USDA failed to provide the required 120-day grace period for them to implement the new guidance, forcing them to scramble to overhaul their eligibility systems overnight.
"USDA's interpretation could saddle states with fines so extreme that some warn they could be forced to shut down their SNAP programs entirely—a disastrous outcome that would leave millions of Americans without access to the nation's most essential anti-hunger program," James wrote in a statement.
The lawsuit was filed in Oregon and attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia signed on.
What People Are Saying
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement to Politico: "President Trump was elected with a resounding mandate to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse across the federal government—which includes ensuring that illegal aliens are not receiving benefits intended for American citizens."
New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a news release: "The USDA's confusing and incorrect guidance puts vulnerable people at risk of losing the food they need to survive. Refugees, asylees, and other immigrants who obtained legal status should not lose access to SNAP benefits because the federal government misread its own laws. Families need certainty, states need clear instruction, and USDA must correct these mistakes immediately."
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said on the publication of the states' letter to the Trump administration on November 19: "The USDA wants states to implement confusing and inaccurate interpretations of the law that would wrongfully deny eligibility for food assistance to thousands of lawfully residing immigrants. If USDA's guidance is not fixed, certain legal permanent residents could needlessly go hungry. I urge the USDA to take immediate action to rectify its errors."
What Happens Next
The lawsuit asks that the court issue a judicial declaration saying the guidance is contrary to law.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines