Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has joined 21 other attorneys general in a lawsuit aimed at stopping new federal guidance that would cut Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for thousands of lawful permanent residents. The coalition seeks to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from enforcing guidance they argue incorrectly deems certain legal immigrants, including those granted asylum or admitted as refugees, as ineligible for food assistance.
Attorney General Nessel stated, “The law is clear on who can receive SNAP benefits, yet the Trump Administration is trying to strip rightful recipients of the support they need to feed their families. It is my hope that the Court puts an end to this unlawful guidance and stops the White House’s ongoing chaos and confusion over Americans’ ability to put food on the table.”
On October 31, the USDA issued new instructions to state SNAP agencies about changes under the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which narrowed eligibility for some non-citizen groups. According to the lawsuit, however, the USDA memo wrongly claimed that all individuals entering through humanitarian pathways would remain permanently ineligible for SNAP—even after becoming lawful permanent residents with green cards. Last week, Nessel and other attorneys general requested clarification or withdrawal of this memo from federal officials but have not received a response.
The group argues that this stance contradicts both the recent legislation and existing federal law. They point out that statutes specify refugees, asylees, humanitarian parolees, and others become eligible for SNAP once they secure green cards and meet standard requirements. The attorneys general claim that USDA’s memo unlawfully changes these rules and could result in eligible people losing access to food assistance.
The lawsuit also contends that USDA misapplied its own regulations regarding implementation timelines. Federal rules provide states a 120-day grace period after new guidance is issued before penalties can be enforced; however, USDA asserted this period ended on November 1—just one day after releasing its memo—leaving states no time to adjust their systems. The coalition says this interpretation is inconsistent with agency rules stating that the grace period starts only when new guidance is actually issued.
States had already begun implementing statutory changes earlier in the year, but according to Nessel and her colleagues, USDA’s sudden directive forces them into rapid system overhauls without adequate preparation time. The attorneys general warn this will create confusion among families relying on SNAP benefits, increase wrongful terminations of aid, erode public trust, and leave states facing either violations of federal law or substantial financial penalties.
Nessel is joined in this legal action by attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
