Key Takeaways

• 21 state attorneys general sued over new SNAP guidance they say blocks legal immigrants from food aid
• They warn steep fines could force some states to end their SNAP programs
• The guidance limits immigrant eligibility under rules signed last July
• Officials call the guidance unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious
• The lawsuit asks a federal court to reverse the policy quickly

A group of Democrat attorneys general from 21 states filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s latest SNAP guidance. They argue the change unfairly cuts legal immigrants out of vital food aid. Moreover, they warn that extreme fines tied to the new rules could shut down entire state programs. As a result, millions may lose access to essential nutrition benefits during a growing cost-of-living crisis.

What Is the SNAP Guidance Change?

Last July, Congress passed a tax and spending package narrowing who can get SNAP benefits. This package set a five-year waiting period for certain legal immigrants. Now, the USDA released guidance enforcing those rules. In fact, the agency’s interpretation hits refugees, asylees, and similar groups with hefty penalties if states make a paperwork mistake.

Officials say the guidance goes further than the law. It imposes fines so steep that a single error could cost states millions. Therefore, many fear a single audit or misfiled document might bring financial ruin to their food assistance systems.

Why States Call SNAP Guidance Harmful

Attorneys general warn that the guidance is not just harsh—it is unlawful. They argue:

• It lacks clear explanations.
• It clashes with how the USDA treated immigrants under past rules.
• It could force state agencies to choose between heavy fines and denying aid.

New York Attorney General Letitia James says the penalties are “so extreme” that some states might close their SNAP programs entirely. She adds that shutting down the nation’s main anti-hunger tool would be disastrous. California Attorney General Rob Bonta agrees. He told Politico that the administration is “violating the law so blatantly” and must be held accountable.

What the Lawsuit Says

The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon calls the guidance “arbitrary and capricious.” It claims the USDA failed to explain why it changed its view on which groups must wait five years before accessing SNAP. The suit notes that refugees, asylees, and those with deportation withheld have always qualified immediately under federal law.

State officials demand the court:

• Block enforcement of the new guidance.
• Require the USDA to stick to established rules unless Congress acts.
• Protect the rights of legal immigrants to receive SNAP benefits.

If successful, the lawsuit could restore immigrant access and avert the risk of program collapse.

White House Response

A White House spokesperson defended the guidance. She stated that President Trump campaigned on ending “waste, fraud, and abuse” in federal programs. Ensuring that illegal immigrants do not receive benefits intended for U.S. citizens is part of that effort. However, critics say the new policy crosses a line by punishing states and blocking eligible people from food aid.

What Could Happen Next

The court will review the case and decide whether to issue an injunction. If it does, states could continue serving immigrants under old rules. Otherwise, agencies may face fines or even close parts of their SNAP systems.

Meanwhile, states must prepare budgets to cover potential penalties. Some may delay benefit renewals or suspend new applications for immigrant households. As a result, many families could go hungry if the matter is not resolved quickly.

The lawsuit also raises broader questions about executive power and agency rule-making. Furthermore, it tests how far the USDA can interpret laws without clear guidance from Congress.

Conclusion

The clash over SNAP guidance highlights a deep political battle over immigration and social safety nets. Twenty-one states say the USDA’s new rules are unlawful and threaten a vital program. The Trump administration argues it is simply enforcing the law. As the case moves forward, millions of low-income households await relief. For now, the courts will decide whether states can keep feeding families without fear of ruinous fines.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does this lawsuit affect current SNAP recipients?

Right now, states can continue serving immigrants under existing rules. If the court blocks the guidance, nothing changes. If not, some states may cut off benefits for affected groups.

Which immigrants face the new SNAP restrictions?

Refugees, asylees, and people with deportation withheld status face a five-year wait. Other groups with similar legal standing may also be caught by the new rules.

What does “arbitrary and capricious” mean in the complaint?

It means the USDA changed its policy without giving a reasonable explanation. Courts require agencies to justify major shifts in how they enforce laws.

When will the court decide on the injunction?

The exact timeline is unclear. Federal courts typically move faster in emergency injunction cases, but it could take weeks or months for a ruling.