WA sues to protect SNAP benefits for legal immigrants in multi-state complaint
Washington state sued on Nov. 26 to prevent the federal government from “unlawfully” blocking food benefits from legal immigrants, according to a news release from Attorney General Nick Brown’s office.
Brown teamed up with 21 other attorneys general in filing the complaint in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon over changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins are named as defendants in the suit led by New York and Oregon.
Plaintiffs want the court to stop new USDA guidance that they argue treats certain legal immigrants as ineligible for SNAP in error. Such permanent residents include refugees and people granted asylum. The AGs also say the USDA’s guidance runs counter to federal law and could lead states to be on the hook for significant financial penalties.
They’re asking for the guidance to be deemed illegal.
Brown said in a Nov. 26 news release that food benefits help provide vulnerable Washingtonians — including kids, seniors and people with disabilities — with enough to eat.
“Now, without any warning or legal basis, USDA is trying to rip these benefits away from green card holders in our communities,” he continued. “We will fight this illegal move and protect SNAP for Washingtonians.”
A USDA spokesperson declined to comment, citing pending litigation, and referred McClatchy to the U.S. Department of Justice.
The DOJ’s public affairs office also declined to comment.
This latest lawsuit comes a day after Brown announced the state is co-leading another complaint against the Trump administration over what it’s calling unlawful changes in federal housing-support policy. That lawsuit marked the 45th case against the Trump administration in under a year.
The SNAP-related complaint takes issue with new USDA guidance on changes to eligibility under H.R. 1, which was signed into law in July. Under the sweeping federal tax and spending package, also called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, eligibility was restricted for some immigrant groups, such as asylum recipients and refugees.
Brown and company assert that the USDA’s recent guidance went beyond changes made by that law. The attorneys general claim the USDA incorrectly stated that those who have entered the U.S. via humanitarian pathways are permanently barred from receiving SNAP, even after becoming lawful permanent residents and getting green cards, in line with current federal statutes.
They also contend that the agency isn’t following federal rules that allow a 120-day grace period for states to adopt new guidance without being hit with financial penalties. But in this case, the attorneys general say, the USDA claimed the grace period expired just one day after the guidance’s Oct. 31 release.
“And because the statute also imposes a cost-shifting framework on the SNAP program for states that USDA determines have unacceptable error rates in administering the program, by disregarding its own rules, USDA is exposing states to major financial penalties for errors caused by the agency’s late and inaccurate memo,” according to the Nov. 26 news release from Brown’s office.
The lawsuit says that New York would pay an extra $367.5 million if its error rate was above 6 percent in fiscal year 2028, $735 million if the error rate is above 8%, and almost $1.2 billion if the error rate is above 10 percent. A spokesperson for Brown’s office was not immediately reachable Wednesday to share what those penalties would cost in Washington state.
Under the Big Beautiful Bill, states will be required to fund between 5% and 15% of food stamp benefits that the federal government had typically paid for, hinging on how regularly they err when distributing payments, the Washington State Standard previously reported.
States would cover 5% of benefits if they have error rates between 6% and 8%, which in Washington would come to about $100 million, according to the article. Washington would pay some $200 million in new costs for a rate between 8% and 10%, and $300 million for anything over 10%, the Standard reported.
The AGs allege that sudden and incorrect guidance is putting states in a bind and could spark confusion for families. The move could hurt public trust and lead to heightened risk of benefits being wrongfully terminated, they say.
Plaintiffs warn this also puts states in a position where they must face steep financial penalties or infringe on federal law.
This story was originally published November 26, 2025 at 1:40 PM.
.jpg)