On Friday, June 5, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from imposing new conditions on billions of dollars in federal nutrition funding, siding with a Democratic-led coalition of states that argued the requirements threaten programs serving low-income families.
US District Judge Myong Jaun granted a preliminary injunction sought by 20 states and the District of Columbia, temporarily halting the US Agriculture Department’s effort to tie funding to compliance with a range of federal policy priorities, according to reports from AP News, Newsweek and Reuters.
The challenging requirements applied to USDA grants and programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which helps nearly 39 million Americans afford groceries. The states argued that the new terms jeopardized funding already approved by Congress and could disrupt vital food aid programs if the lawsuit moved forward.
Jaun, sitting on the federal bench in Boston, said he would issue a written memorandum explaining his decision at a later date.
States say USDA overstepped its authority
The lawsuit filed by a coalition of Democratic attorneys general in March challenged USDA directives requiring states to certify compliance with various federal “policies” to continue receiving funds.
According to court filings, the terms at issue included provisions related to immigration, “gender ideology” and “fair athletic opportunities” for women and girls. States argued that the requirements were vague, unrelated to nutrition and agriculture programs, and imposed without proper legal processes.
In the complaint, the states said USDA has placed “unconstitutional and unlawful barriers” between federally authorized programs and the states that administer them, threatening nutrition assistance, agricultural research, and food supply systems.
The plaintiffs include Washington, D.C., along with 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 strengthen federal oversight of taxpayer-funded programs.
In court filings, administration lawyers said the requirements would promote responsible management of federal funds, improve USDA oversight and ensure that recipients comply with federal laws, regulations and policies.
The Trump administration has also argued that if states must follow federal anti-discrimination laws to receive federal funds, other federal policies should be treated the same.
The funding fight has broader implications
The issue extends beyond SNAP. According to the lawsuit, the conditions could also affect school meal programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC.
According to court filings, states collectively receive more than $74 billion annually through USDA programs.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell praised the decision on social media, calling the USDA grant a “lifeline” for families. New York Attorney General Letitia James also welcomed the decision, saying that her office would continue to fight to protect federal funding as the lawsuit moves forward.
