A coalition of Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit on Wednesday challenging the Trump administration’s move to restrict food aid benefits for tens of thousands of legal immigrants, arguing that the policy unlawfully excludes vulnerable groups from the nation’s anti-hunger safety net.
Attorneys general from 21 states and the District of Columbia brought the case in federal court in Eugene, Oregon, seeking to block new guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The guidance reinterprets provisions of President Donald Trump’s signature domestic policy law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, to declare certain categories of non-citizens—including lawful permanent residents who were previously refugees or asylees—ineligible for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, commonly known as food stamps.
“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,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the lead plaintiffs.
The USDA declined to comment on the lawsuit. However, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly defended the administration’s position, saying, “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.”
Federal law already bars undocumented immigrants from receiving SNAP benefits.
Background: Food Aid Program Under Pressure
SNAP provides monthly food assistance to approximately 42 million low-income Americans, administered jointly by federal and state governments. The program briefly lapsed for the first time in its 60-year history during the 43-day government shutdown that ended on November 12, prompting several lawsuits from states seeking to continue distributing benefits using available funds.
According to USDA data, in fiscal year 2023, about 1% of SNAP recipients (434,000 people) were refugees, while 3% (1.3 million people) were other non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law in July, introduced sweeping changes to the SNAP program. It added work requirements and restricted eligibility primarily to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, reflecting the administration’s tougher stance on immigration and welfare programs.
States Dispute USDA’s Interpretation
The coalition of states argues that the USDA’s recent guidance goes beyond what the law allows. While the act limits certain categories of immigrants, such as refugees, individuals granted asylum, and humanitarian parolees—from receiving benefits, the states note that it does not permanently exclude them.
Once those individuals adjust their immigration status and obtain green cards, they are supposed to become eligible for SNAP benefits under federal law, provided they meet the program’s standard requirements.
The states contend that the USDA’s October 31 directive improperly classifies these groups as permanently “not eligible” for assistance. They claim this forces state agencies to overhaul their eligibility systems on an accelerated timeline or risk losing federal funding.
In the lawsuit, the states said the USDA’s action is both “arbitrary and unlawful” and violates the intent of Congress to ensure that refugees and other humanitarian entrants are treated fairly once they become lawful residents.
Legal and Political Context
The case marks the latest legal challenge between Democratic-led states and the Trump administration over social welfare programs and immigration policy.
Trump and senior administration officials have repeatedly argued that expanding eligibility for federal aid to non-citizens contributes to government waste. Opponents counter that the policy unfairly penalizes lawful immigrants who have met all federal residency and work requirements.
While the administration maintains the rule is designed to prioritize American citizens, state officials argue it directly undermines humanitarian principles and federal law.
“These changes are not only cruel but unlawful,” said a senior official from one of the suing states, speaking on condition of anonymity. “They punish people who came here legally, followed the process, and are trying to build stable lives.”
