Attorney General James leads a major legal battle to block the Trump administration’s push to strip permanent residents of their SNAP benefits

New York – New York Attorney General Letitia James has once again stepped into the national spotlight, this time leading a group of 21 attorneys general in a forceful legal challenge aimed at blocking the Trump administration’s latest attempt to restrict access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The coalition filed suit after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued new guidance that would bar thousands of lawful permanent residents—many of whom arrived in the United States through humanitarian programs—from receiving food assistance, even if they are fully eligible under federal law.

The move has set off alarms across state governments, anti-hunger organizations, and immigrant advocates, who warn that the USDA’s directive stretches far beyond what Congress intended and could push vulnerable families into sudden food insecurity. In announcing the lawsuit, Attorney General James stressed the stakes in sharp terms. “The federal government’s shameful quest to take food away from children and families continues,” she said. “USDA has no authority to arbitrarily cut entire groups of people out of the SNAP program, and no one should go hungry because of the circumstances of their arrival to this country. My office will always fight to protect Americans’ SNAP benefits, and I will do everything in my power to shield New Yorkers from this unlawful policy.”

How the Dispute Began

The core of the conflict centers on an agency memo released by USDA on October 31. The memo offered guidance to state SNAP agencies on implementing changes tied to a statute nicknamed the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” a wide-ranging federal package that adjusted several eligibility rules for non-citizens. While the statute itself did narrow benefits for some categories of recent arrivals, it preserved long-standing eligibility rules for refugees, asylees, and others admitted under humanitarian protections once they became lawful permanent residents and met other standard requirements.

USDA’s guidance, however, went much further. The memo declared that several groups of immigrants admitted through humanitarian pathways would be permanently ineligible for SNAP—even after receiving green cards. According to the attorneys general, the guidance does not merely interpret federal law; it overrides it. Nothing in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” or any other statute, the coalition argues, allows the agency to impose such a restriction.

Read also: City Hall prepares for the Dec. 3 tree lighting event with a live stream available for everyone to enjoy from home

For many families, the implications go far beyond a technical change on paper. SNAP, long considered the cornerstone of the country’s food assistance system, helps low-income households purchase groceries and maintain stable nutrition. Removing that support from lawful permanent residents who were explicitly made eligible by Congress could have immediate and severe consequences.

States Warn of Rising Hunger and Program Chaos

The lawsuit details concerns that go beyond the harm to individuals. States say they are being forced into an impossible position. USDA’s guidance insists that eligibility systems must be updated immediately and claims that the standard 120-day grace period for implementing new directives has already expired—despite the memo being released on the eve of a weekend and during a federal shutdown, when agencies operated under limited capacity.

Under ordinary circumstances, the 120-day window allows states to reprogram computer systems, train staff, and communicate changes to families. USDA’s interpretation effectively eliminates this window, creating a scenario in which states must either comply instantly or face steep financial penalties.

The attorneys general argue that this interpretation is not only unworkable but also illegal. Federal regulations clearly give states time to adjust, and the USDA cannot simply rewrite that provision by issuing a rushed memo. They say the agency’s position makes the guidance unlawful on its face.

The financial consequences described in the lawsuit are staggering. Because of the penalty structure tied to the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” states that fail to comply with USDA’s new reading could face fines so large that some officials warned they might be forced to shut down their SNAP programs entirely. Such a collapse would leave millions across the country without access to a program many rely on during economic hardship, unexpected job loss, or sudden family emergencies.

Impact in New York Could Be Immediate and Severe

In New York alone, the guidance could push as many as 35,000 lawful permanent residents off the SNAP rolls. These individuals include families who have lived in the state for years, paid taxes, and followed the legal pathways laid out by Congress to obtain permanent residency. Without intervention, these residents could lose benefits almost overnight, increasing food insecurity across communities and placing heavy pressure on emergency food providers that already operate close to capacity.

The financial threat is equally alarming. New York could face penalties reaching $1.2 billion, according to the Attorney General’s office. Such fines would place huge stress on the state’s social safety net and ripple outward to programs that assist seniors, children, and low-income households confronting rising food costs.

Read also: Governor Hochul unveils a sweeping $300 million POWER UP initiative designed to expand New York’s supply of power-ready and shovel-ready industrial locations for advanced manufacturers

New York officials argue that they have already taken appropriate steps to implement the actual statutory changes adopted earlier in the year. What they cannot responsibly do, they say, is rewrite eligibility mechanisms in a matter of hours based on a memo that conflicts with federal law and longstanding congressional intent.

A Breakdown in Communication

Before turning to the courts, the coalition of attorneys general attempted to resolve the matter directly. Last week, representatives from 21 states sent a formal request urging the USDA to revise or withdraw the memo. Their letter outlined the legal problems, practical barriers, and severe consequences of enforcing the new restrictions without delay. The USDA did not respond.

That silence, the attorneys general say, left them no choice but to file suit. Their legal action seeks an order vacating the USDA guidance in its entirety and preventing the agency from implementing the policy while the case moves forward. Without judicial intervention, the coalition warns that families across the nation could see vital food assistance abruptly terminated, while states scramble to sort out conflicting directives under the threat of financially devastating penalties.

Coalition Represents Broad Geographic and Political Diversity

The lawsuit includes attorneys general from states across the country and from a broad political spectrum. Alongside New York are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. While their states vary widely in size, demographics, and political leadership, they share a common concern that the USDA’s actions threaten both the legal rights of their residents and the stability of a foundational federal program.

What Comes Next

The legal challenge is expected to move quickly, given the urgent nature of the situation. Courts may be asked to consider temporary relief measures to prevent the USDA from enforcing the guidance while the litigation proceeds. In the meantime, states are working to reassure families who rely on SNAP that their current benefits remain intact unless a court rules otherwise.

Attorney General James has made clear that New York will continue fighting the policy until it is overturned. She emphasized that the lawsuit is not just about administrative procedure but about protecting communities from a policy that she and other officials view as both unlawful and harmful. For many affected families, the stakes could not be higher. Access to food assistance can be the difference between stability and crisis, especially amid rising living costs.

As the case unfolds, state leaders say they remain committed to defending the intent of federal law, safeguarding public programs, and ensuring that no family is left hungry because of administrative overreach.

If you want, I can also generate alternative versions, shorter summaries, or headlines!