New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin has joined 21 other state attorneys general in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to prevent new guidance that would restrict Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for certain lawful permanent residents. The legal action seeks to stop federal changes that could make groups such as refugees and asylum recipients ineligible for food assistance, despite their status as permanent residents.
According to Attorney General Platkin, “Once again, the Trump Administration is trying to take food from the tables of families in New Jersey – legal residents who pay taxes and did everything right – for no reason other than illegal and abject cruelty. Cutting SNAP benefits to legal residents is unlawful, unnecessary, and unthinkable at a time when families are having harder and harder time affording basic groceries. We are taking the Trump Administration to court and fighting to uphold the law so that our neighbors can feed their families.”
The USDA issued its guidance on October 31, describing eligibility changes under the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” This guidance indicated that people admitted through humanitarian programs—such as refugees or those granted asylum—would remain permanently ineligible for SNAP even after obtaining green cards. The coalition of attorneys general argues this interpretation is not supported by either the bill or existing federal statutes, which state that these groups become eligible for SNAP once they meet program requirements.
Additionally, the lawsuit contends that USDA’s implementation timeline misapplies its own regulations regarding how long states have to adapt their systems after receiving new guidance. The agency claims a 120-day grace period expired on November 1, only one day after releasing its memo, leaving states without adequate time to respond before facing potential financial penalties.
The attorneys general warn that these abrupt changes could result in confusion among affected families, wrongful terminations of benefits, increased administrative burdens for states, and erosion of public trust in government programs. They seek a court order vacating the USDA’s guidance and blocking its enforcement until lawful procedures are followed.
This lawsuit was led by New York and Oregon with support from attorneys general representing California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
