Democratic Attorneys General Sue to Block USDA Guidance That Could Remove SNAP Benefits from Refugees and Asylees

A coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general filed suit on Wednesday seeking to block new U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidance that they say would improperly render some immigrants — including refugees and people granted asylum — ineligible for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the coalition, called the guidance an unlawful effort to cut off benefits for tens of thousands of lawful permanent residents. "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."

The lawsuit lists the attorneys general of Washington, D.C., and the states of Oregon, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin as co‑plaintiffs.

On Oct. 31, the USDA issued guidance to states that narrows SNAP eligibility in ways the plaintiffs say exceed statutory limits and conflict with existing exemptions. Under current law many lawful permanent residents must generally wait five years before qualifying for certain federal benefits, but specific humanitarian groups have long been exempted from that waiting period. The complaint argues the USDA guidance lists only some exemptions and wrongly omits categories that the statute protects.

The filing says the guidance would effectively make anyone who entered the country through humanitarian protection programs permanently ineligible for SNAP — even after they obtain lawful resident status. It cites explicit omissions in the agency memo, including refugees and individuals granted asylum, and notes other exempt groups that were not listed such as certain Afghan and Ukrainian parolees, Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holders, and victims of severe trafficking.

Plaintiffs warn the memo will force states into a rapid and costly overhaul of eligibility systems, describing the change as one that "threatens to destabilize SNAP nationwide." They also challenge the USDA's timing for the agency's 120‑day exclusion window, saying it began on the date a separate federal law took effect rather than on the date the agency circulated the guidance to states — a timing choice that, according to the complaint, compressed the period for states to respond.

The lawsuit asks a federal court in Oregon to vacate the USDA guidance and block its implementation pending further judicial review. A USDA spokesperson declined to comment on pending litigation. Prior to filing suit, the attorneys general say they asked the agency to correct and clarify the guidance but received no substantive reply.

The case underscores a broader dispute over how immigration categories intersect with federal benefits and the administrative authority of agencies to interpret eligibility rules. The plaintiffs say they filed to protect families who would otherwise lose essential nutrition assistance while the government pursues policy changes.

This account may be updated as new developments occur.