Left: New York Attorney General Letitia James speaks during a press conference regarding former US President Donald Trump and his family's financial fraud case on September 21, 2022 in New York (photo by YUKI IWAMURA/AFP via Getty Images). Right: Donald Trump speaks at a 'Save America' rally on October 22, 2022 in Robstown, Texas (photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images).
The Trump administration is unlawfully trying to keep Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits away from lawful permanent residents, a lawsuit filed this week alleges.
In July, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) Act, which amended eligibility provisions for SNAP in various ways.
In late October, during the height of the government shutdown, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) subagency Food Nutrition Services (FNS) issued guidance interpreting the recently-passed omnibus legislation. That guidance purports to limit noncitizen access to SNAP benefits in several significant ways.
The lawsuit filed Wednesday by New York Attorney General Letitia James says the FNS guidance "errs" in how it interprets the new law.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
At the heart of the litigation are the government's apparent efforts to keep certain categories of noncitizens who become green card holders from ever accessing SNAP benefits, the plaintiffs say.
The 28-page complaint offers a condensed history lesson:
Prior to the OBBB going into effect, non-citizens who entered the United States as refugees or were granted asylum were eligible for SNAP, based on their status at the time of their admission or parole. This was also true for many who were granted humanitarian parole. OBBB eliminated these categories of eligibility in the FNA. However, nothing in OBBB prohibits individuals who once held the status of refugees, individuals granted asylum, or parolees from gaining eligibility for SNAP if and when they adjust their status to lawful permanent residents (LPRs).
To hear the plaintiffs tell it, immigrants who came to the United States as refugees or asylum seekers "can be eligible for SNAP benefits if they adjust status and become" green card holders, but the Trump administration is trying to make sure such immigrants "will never be eligible for SNAP benefits."
"The Guidance creates a false dichotomy in describing categories of immigration statuses post-OBBB as either 'Not eligible unless an LPR' or 'Not eligible,'" the lawsuit reads. "Regardless of the status they once held, any non-citizen who adjusts to LPR status can become eligible for SNAP if they meet other statutory requirements. However, the Guidance incorrectly places many of these individuals in the 'Not eligible' category, rather than the 'Not eligible unless an LPR category'"
The plaintiffs say the government is "misleadingly" telling certain groups of immigrants they can never become eligible for SNAP benefits.
"In reality, irrespective of someone's immigration status before becoming an LPR, once they obtain their Green Card, they are eligible for SNAP if they meet other statutory requirements," the lawsuit goes on.
A secondary issue is the speed with which SNAP benefits can be conferred on certain non-citizens due to an ancillary law known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA).
Under PRWORA, green card holders are only eligible for SNAP benefits if they have lived in the country for at least five years or without the five-year waiting period if they fall into "approximately a dozen" enumerated categories — such as being blind, disabled, or a child, the lawsuit explains.
Now, however, the government says those exceptions to the waiting period no longer apply to certain classes of green card holders.
The plaintiffs reject this "clear" misreading of PRWORA, the lawsuit says.
"PRWORA excludes individuals who were admitted as refugees, granted asylum, had their deportation withheld, and others, from the five-year waiting period," the complaint continues. "And no provision of the OBBB amended PRWORA's exemptions from its five-year waiting period."
A tertiary issue identified by the plaintiffs is a new system to identify and account for errors envisioned by the FNS guidance.
That new system, the plaintiffs insist, "would saddle states with catastrophic financial penalties unless they immediately implement the unlawful restrictions," according to a press release issued by James' office.
Under the OBBB, states have 120 days to process new guidance and root out violations, according to the lawsuit. Still, the Trump administration is trying to implement the FNS guidance with only one day of leeway for any such violations, the filing explains.
"The federal government's shameful quest to take food away from children and families continues," James said in a statement. "USDA has no authority to arbitrarily cut entire groups of people out of the SNAP program, and no one should go hungry because of the circumstances of their arrival to this country. My office will always fight to protect Americans' SNAP benefits, and I will do everything in my power to shield New Yorkers from this unlawful policy."
The Empire State is the lead plaintiff, along with 20 other states, in the litigation. The lawsuit alleges multiple violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal statute governing agency behavior.
