...
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.
A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump's administration must give states more time to implement rules relating to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Why It Matters
SNAP is the largest anti-hunger program in the U.S., helping around 42 million low- and no-income Americans buy groceries.
Read More
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4, immediately reduced the pool of immigrants who can receive SNAP benefits, though states were given a grace period to begin implementing the changes.
On November 26, a coalition of 20 state attorneys general sued the Trump administration after it issued guidance on October 31 that would block SNAP benefits for refugees and asylum-seekers who have obtained legal status, and ordered states to comply with the guidance immediately or face steep fines.
When contacted by Newsweek to comment on the case, a spokesperson for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) said it does "not comment on pending litigation."
What To Know
The lawsuit followed the guidance issued by the USDA in October that said some lawful permanent residents—including people who entered the United States as refugees or asylum-seekers—were permanently ineligible for SNAP, even after obtaining green card status.
...
Facing legal pressure, the administration reversed course on December 10, issuing new guidance that reaffirmed SNAP eligibility for all lawful permanent residents, including former refugees and asylum-seekers.
However, the agency continued to push back on a related issue raised by the states: when the required 120-day grace period for compliance began. The USDA argued that it expired on November 1, the day after the original guidance was issued, which was disputed by the states.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said this week that the administration has continued to warn states they could face millions of dollars in penalties for failing to comply with a required implementation “grace period,” even though the final guidance was not released until December 10.
According to New York Attorney General Letitia James, such fines could have forced states to “shut down their SNAP programs entirely.” The states also argued that the USDA failed to provide the legally required 120-day grace period to implement the policy change, leaving them trying to rapidly overhaul eligibility systems with little notice.
U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai agreed with the states, concluding that the USDA’s position was unlawful, inconsistent with past practice, and would expose state budgets to irreparable harm if the grace period were not extended.
“The inability to provide compliance in the time period in which they were forced to by virtue of the guidance contributed to an erosion of trust,” Kasubhai said. The grace period has now been extended from November 1 to April 9, 2026.
What People Are Saying
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Newsweek: “President Trump is rightfully reducing waste, fraud, and abuse across the administration. Rather than wasting more money on lawsuits, states should be working with the federal government to ensure strengthen programs like SNAP for the American citizens they were intended to serve. This will not be the final say on the matter.”
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said: “In Oregon and across the country, SNAP supports families to make ends meet throughout the year. The federal government’s threat to impose this—especially during the holiday season—created needless uncertainty for programs that help people put food on the table. Today’s ruling stops that disruption and allows Oregon to keep administering SNAP without fear of being punished for following the law.”
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said: “The Trump administration tried to illegally take SNAP benefits from green card holders, despite their lawful status in this country. We sued, and they backed down. Then they tried to charge our states massive fines for not sufficiently implementing the guidance that they themselves have delayed, withdrawn, and reissued because they couldn’t figure out how to do so lawfully.
"This administration has violated the law time and again, always showing both its malice and its incompetence. Once again, the courts have sided with us and stopped the administration from implementing these illegal fines. We will continue to do everything we can to keep this critical program running smoothly so that Washington seniors, children, and people living with disabilities can put food on the table this holiday season.”
What Happens Next
The White House and USDA have not yet publicly commented on the ruling.
Correction 12/17/25, 11:42 a.m. ET: This article has been updated to reflect the correct name of Mustafa Kasubhai.
Update 12/17/25, 03:04 a.m. ET: This article has been updated with comment from White House spokesperson Anna Kelly.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines