In a clash over who gets a seat at America’s dinner table, more than twenty Democratic-led states have hauled the administration into federal court, accusing officials in Washington of trying to quietly starve tens of thousands of lawful immigrants of their monthly food support.
The courtroom brawl erupted in Eugene, Oregon, where a multistate coalition filed suit challenging a new federal interpretation that sweeps refugees and people granted asylum into the “not eligible” corner of the SNAP universe. According to the states, the guidance attempts to turn a technical reading of a recent policy overhaul into a wholesale lock on the pantry door.
The battle centers on how to understand portions of the administration’s sweeping domestic law, which reshaped the country’s primary nutrition program with tougher work rules and a narrower definition of who counts as an eligible recipient. While the law itself placed limits on access for certain humanitarian arrivals, state officials argue it never barred them from qualifying once they transition into permanent resident status.
Instead, they say the recent federal memo tried to freeze them out forever.
“Entire groups of people cannot simply be erased from the lifeline that keeps families fed,” one state official said, as the coalition argued that hunger shouldn’t hinge on the story of how someone first arrived in the country.
The administration offered no additional details, though a spokesperson insisted that restricting benefits to citizens and lawful permanent residents follows its broader campaign to crack down on misuse of public programs.
States, however, say the guidance goes far beyond lawful parameters, leaving them scrambling to rewrite eligibility systems overnight — all under the threat of federal penalties if they refuse.
SNAP, the backbone of the nation’s anti-hunger network, puts food on the table for more than 40 million people. Refugees account for only a sliver of those recipients, and other non-citizen groups make up a similarly small share. Still, the stakes run deep: during the historic shutdown earlier this year, the program faltered for the first time in its six-decade history, igniting a wave of legal battles over access to emergency funding.
Now, with immigration status, statutory interpretation, and food aid tangled together, the states are asking the court to stop the federal government from reshaping the program in ways they say Congress never authorized.
In their view, the issue is simple: once a refugee or asylee gains a green card and meets the usual SNAP rules, the pantry door should open — not slam shut.
