SNAP benefit changes will have a ‘ripple effect’ at local grocery stores
Leaders at Forest Park’s Living Fresh Market say recent changes to SNAP benefits are increasing fear and uncertainty for struggling families.
Fox – 32 Chicago
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from imposing new conditions on billions of dollars in federal nutrition funding, siding with a coalition of Democratic-led states that argued the requirements threatened programs serving low-income families.
U.S. District Judge Myung Jun granted a preliminary injunction sought by 20 states and the District of Columbia, temporarily halting the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s efforts to link funding to compliance with various federal policy priorities, the Associated Press, Newsweek and Reuters reported.
This onerous requirement applies to USDA grants and programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps about 39 million Americans buy groceries. The states argued that the new conditions could jeopardize funding already approved by Congress and disrupt critical food assistance programs while the lawsuits proceed.
Jaune, sitting in a federal courtroom in Boston, said he would issue a written memorandum explaining his decision at a later date.
States claim USDA exceeded its authority
The lawsuit, filed in March by a coalition of Democratic attorneys general, challenged a Department of Agriculture directive that required states to certify compliance with various federal “policies” in order to continue receiving funding.
The terms at issue included provisions regarding immigration, “gender ideology” and “equal athletic opportunities” for women and girls, according to court filings. States argued that the requirements were vague, unrelated to nutrition or agriculture programs, and imposed without due legal process.
The states argued in their complaint that the USDA is creating “unconstitutional and unlawful barriers” between federally authorized programs and the states that administer them, threatening nutrition assistance, agricultural research and food supply systems.
Plaintiffs include Washington, D.C., as well as Massachusetts, California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, Colorado and several other Democratic-led states.
Administration defends surveillance measures
Government lawyers opposed the injunction, arguing that the terms were intended to increase federal oversight of taxpayer-funded programs.
In a court filing, administrative lawyers said the requirement promotes responsible management of federal funds, improves USDA oversight and ensures recipients comply with federal laws, regulations and policies.
The Trump administration also argues that if states must follow federal antidiscrimination laws to receive federal funds, other federal policies should be treated similarly.
Funding battles have far-reaching implications
This incident extends beyond SNAP. The complaint says the conditions could also affect the school lunch program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, known as WIC.
In total, states receive more than $74 billion annually through the USDA program, according to court filings.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell praised the ruling on social media, calling the USDA grant a “lifeline” for families. New York Attorney General Letitia James also welcomed the decision, saying her office will continue to fight to protect federal funds while the lawsuit progresses.
Reporter Anthony Thompson can be reached at ajthompson@usatodayco.com or X @athompsonUSAT.
