Judge gives states more time to meet new SNAP rules for immigrants

EUGENE, Ore. (CN) — A federal judge on Monday extended the grace period for states to comply with new guidance that restricts food stamp benefits to certain non-U.S. citizen groups, finding that competing guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture hindered states’ ability to implement the changes.

On Oct. 31, the USDA issued new guidance detailing changes in eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP. Those changes both narrowed the eligibility for refugees, asylum recipients and other noncitizen groups admitted to the country through humanitarian programs and “simultaneously created a set of massive penalties tied to state error rates in issuing payments to SNAP beneficiaries,” according to the plaintiff states.

The changes to program eligibility were part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, also referred to as H.R.1, which was enacted in July. However, the USDA didn’t issue the guidance to states until Oct. 31. On Nov. 1, the USDA then announced that it would end the 120-day grace period for states to make changes without facing financial penalties.

U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai said in a lengthy bench ruling that the Oct. 31 guidance “contributed to the confusion, lack of coherence and the ability for plaintiff states to be able to begin successful implementation of H.R.1.”

The Joe Biden appointee also said that “distance” between H.R.1 and the USDA’s Oct. 31 guidance is “further evidence of the lack of uniform communication” that would be “expected and necessary” for the agency to provide to the states so they could successfully implement the changes.

The judge extended the 120-day grace period to April 9, 2026, effective immediately, allowing states an additional four months to come into compliance with the changes without facing financial penalties.

“The holiday season is a time of kindness and generosity. Unfortunately, this president has decided to play the Grinch,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “That’s not what America stands for. As families struggle to make ends meet, we’re going to keep fighting for vital programs like SNAP that allow them to put food on the table — even when it means taking the president to court.”

A representative for the U.S. Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Washington, joined by 20 other states and the District of Columbia, sued the Trump administration in late November, claiming the 120-day countdown was wrongly started at the time the bill was signed in July rather than the time the guidance was issued in October. They also argue that the guidance “goes beyond the act” and arbitrarily excludes many lawful permanent residents.

At Monday’s hearing, Molly Thomas-Jensen, an attorney with the New York State Attorney General’s office, said all substantive issues over SNAP eligibility had been resolved after the USDA had issued additional guidance documents last week clarifying SNAP eligibility under H.R.1.

In contrast, U.S. Justice Department attorney Tyler Becker said the agency “never intended to go beyond H.R.1” and attributed the confusion to “some misunderstanding from plaintiff states.”

With the eligibility issue off the table, the parties spent a large amount of time during the four-hour hearing debating when the 120-exclusionary period began.

Jensen explained that states have traditionally waited for the USDA to issue guidance when there is a new law changing SNAP eligibility rules. She clarified that states have been working to implement the changes, but it takes a significant amount of time to update outdated computer systems and apply the new eligibility criteria to SNAP applicants.

“Everyone agrees it is effective immediately. Everyone agrees the state has to do this quickly. The question is when the USDA can start counting errors to the state error rate,” she said.

The states argued that error rates usually increase when new eligibility rules are introduced, and the new penalties introduced in H.R.1 are so significant that at least one state is considering withdrawing from the SNAP program completely.

“Because these penalties are so massive, the scale of this means that, yes, all states are trying to get their error rates low; now they have a gun to their head to get them lower,” Thomas-Jensen said.

Becker countered that the states had known about the changes since H.R.1 was passed on July 4 and submitted that the USDA does not see a difference between the effective date and the implementation date. He added that extending the compliance period would be “contrary to congressional intent.”

“Of course, the USDA appreciates working with the states on these issues and will continue to do so, as it did here. … But, ultimately, the states have to look to the statute and make their own determinations,” he said.

Ultimately, Kasubhai ruled that he “cannot square reading and understanding” the interpretation of the effective date and implementation date to mean the same thing, adding that he could only treat them the same with “explicit intent by Congress, which is not evidenced in H.R.1.”

The states additionally argued that they are suffering irreparable harm from fronting the cost to come into compliance with the new guidelines immediately, budgetary uncertainty and erosion of trust by the public.

In contrast, the government contended it was suffering harm from not being able to implement the SNAP eligibility changes. Becker claimed that if the court extended the grace period, any future mistake by the agency could cause a significant delay in implementation.

Kasubhai said the plaintiff’s arguments of irreparable harm are “credible and compelling.”

“The harm to the people because of the actions taken by the guidance and prevention of the exclusionary rule, accommodating a measured ramping of provisions in H.R.1, would create very real harm to very real people. That harm is a public interest to be prevented,” he said.

Joining Oregon, Washington and New York in the lawsuit are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

Follow @mhattridge_