Add as preferred on Google
A Eugene, Oregon, Judge ruled on Monday that the USDA erred by giving states just one day’s notice to comply with new guidelines that wrongly treat several groups of legal immigrants as ineligible for food assistance, including permanent residents granted asylum or admitted as refugees, placing massive financial pressure on the states.
Deadline On New Snap Guidelines Extended
After the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued SNAP eligibility guidelines on October 31 requiring that states comply by November 1, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and a 21-state coalition filed a lawsuit to block the unlawful guidance in November.
Tidings Data Snapshot
SNAP guidance deadline whiplashSource: Reuters reporting on Judge Kasubhai injunction and Oregon DOJ lawsuit releaseDailyTidings.com
The guidance wrongly treats several groups of legal immigrants as ineligible for food assistance, including permanent residents granted asylum or admitted as refugees.
AG Rayfield said:
“We’re the wealthiest country in the world, and no one should go hungry. When this memo came out, we thought it must be a mistake. The law is clear, and this is not how you treat people.”
| Immigrant group | Pre OBBB memo status | Post OBBB memo wording | Why states object |
|---|---|---|---|
| Refugees | Eligible immediately | Not eligible | Memo reads as permanent ineligibility even after later LPR status |
| Granted asylum | Eligible immediately | Not eligible | States argue the law allows eligibility once a person adjusts to LPR |
| Parolees | Eligible immediately | Not eligible unless LPR | Confusion plus threat of state penalties during fast system changes |
| Withholding of deportation | Eligible immediately | Not eligible | States say memo conflicts with how eligibility has been administered |
| Some humanitarian groups | Eligible immediately | Not eligible unless LPR | States say USDA should have allowed the full grace period to avoid errors |
In the lawsuit, the attorneys general argued that federal rules give states a 120-day grace period after new guidance is issued to adjust their systems without facing severe financial penalties.
Still, USDA claimed that the period expired on November 1, just one day after the guidance was released and before states, which administer the benefits on a day-to-day basis, could review it.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, a Biden-era appointee in Eugene, Oregon, issued an injunction requiring the USDA to extend the expiration date of the grace period for states to implement new food aid restrictions in compliance with the latest SNAP laws. The deadline was moved from November 1 to April 9.
Judge Kasubhai said revisions to USDA’s guidance that the agency made last week corrected a policy on ineligibility that contravened the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’, signed into law in July, but noted that USDA stood firm on when the 120-day grace period for states to comply with the guidance was to expire, insisting it ended November 1, the day after issue.
The Judge said USDA’s position was unlawful and contrary to past practice, and, if the grace period were not extended, would expose the states’ budgets to irreparable harm.
Be the first to comment.