Oregon Leads Legal Action Against USDA Over SNAP Cuts for Refugees

Oregon has taken a decisive step in a legal battle against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over significant cuts to food assistance for refugees and asylum seekers. Joined by a coalition of Democratic attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia, Oregon’s action challenges USDA leadership under Brooke Rollins, accusing the agency of violating federal law regarding food assistance eligibility.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Oregon, highlights the impact of these abrupt changes on approximately 3,000 Oregonians who depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Many of these individuals entered the United States as refugees, asylum seekers, or through other humanitarian protection programs, according to Dan Rayfield, Oregon’s Attorney General.

Legal Grounds for the Challenge

The attorneys general argue that Rollins unlawfully attempted to restrict food assistance for certain non-citizen groups, despite their attainment of permanent residency. The USDA’s recent guidance reportedly gave state SNAP agencies a mere one day, instead of the standard 120 days, to adapt to the new rules. This compressed timeline could lead to severe penalties for states that fail to comply.

During a virtual news conference, Rayfield expressed outrage, stating, “We’re one of the most wealthy countries in the world, and no one should go hungry in America. It’s absolutely absurd that we’re having this press conference here today, a day before Thanksgiving.”

The lawsuit represents Oregon’s 48th legal action against the federal government since former President Donald Trump commenced his second term in January. Oregon is co-leading this effort alongside New York.

Confusion and Legislative Background

The situation became more complex following the passage of a GOP tax and spending bill earlier this summer, which eliminated SNAP eligibility for some refugees and asylum seekers. However, the attorneys general assert that this legislation did not permanently disqualify these groups from receiving benefits after obtaining permanent resident status.

A memo dated October 31 from Ronald Ward, USDA Associate Administrator, further complicates matters. It categorized certain refugee and asylum groups as “not eligible” for SNAP benefits, while others could only qualify after a five-year waiting period post-residency. This directive, issued during a government shutdown, has contributed to widespread confusion among state SNAP agencies.

Rob Bonta, California’s Attorney General, emphasized the legality of SNAP eligibility, stating, “Federal law is specific and says that refugees, asylees, humanitarian parolees and other vulnerable legal immigrants are eligible for SNAP benefits as soon as they obtain their green cards and meet standard program requirements. The administration does not have the power to rewrite these rules just because they don’t like them.”

On November 19, the coalition of attorneys general sent a formal letter to Rollins, seeking clarification on the rapid implementation of the new guidance and the reasons behind the deviation from the 120-day standard. The lack of a response prompted the filing of the lawsuit.

The ongoing mixed messaging from the USDA reflects broader issues as families relying on SNAP navigate the aftermath of the government shutdown, which previously threatened November benefits. Bonta noted, “The reality is, after losing in court again and again, the Trump administration is still trying to find ways to deprive families that are barely scraping by of basic food assistance that the law affords them.”

As this legal battle unfolds, the implications for thousands of vulnerable families seeking food security remain a pressing concern, highlighting the ongoing challenges within the U.S. social safety net.