Oregon and New York Sue USDA Over Food Assistance Cuts for Refugees

Oregon, in conjunction with New York and a coalition of Democratic attorneys general, has initiated a legal challenge against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over significant cuts to food assistance affecting refugees and asylum seekers. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Oregon, contends that the USDA, led by Brooke Rollins, unlawfully restricted access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for vulnerable non-citizens.

The abrupt changes to SNAP eligibility could impact approximately 3,000 Oregonians who have arrived in the United States through humanitarian channels. According to Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, the modifications to the program violate federal law by attempting to eliminate food assistance for certain groups, even after they have achieved permanent residency status.

Legal Claims and Response Timeframe

The lawsuit highlights that the USDA’s recent actions have contravened its established rules for communicating changes to state SNAP agencies. In a notable departure from the standard 120-day adjustment period, Rollins mandated that states respond to new guidance regarding eligibility within just one day, a timeline that critics argue is unmanageable and unreasonable.

Rayfield expressed his frustration at a virtual news conference, 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.” This sentiment underscores the urgency of the issue, particularly as it coincides with the holiday season when food security is paramount.

The coalition includes attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia, making this Oregon’s 48th lawsuit against the federal government since President Donald Trump began his second term in January.

Confusion and Legislative Background

The controversy stems from a memo dated October 31, 2023, issued by Ronald Ward, USDA Associate Administrator. This memo classified specific refugee and asylum groups as “not eligible” for SNAP benefits, while others were deemed ineligible until they had resided in the U.S. as permanent residents for five years. The issuance of this memo during a government shutdown compounded the confusion, as state agencies were left with minimal time to adapt their policies.

Legal representatives argue that federal law clearly stipulates the eligibility of refugees and asylees for SNAP benefits upon receiving their green cards, a right that cannot be arbitrarily revoked by administrative changes. California Attorney General Rob Bonta emphasized this point, stating, “The administration does not have the power to rewrite these rules just because they don’t like them.”

On November 19, 2023, the attorneys general collectively reached out to Rollins to request clarification and correction of the alleged missteps. They noted the lack of response from the USDA as a driving force behind the decision to file the lawsuit.

Bonta further elaborated on the broader implications of the USDA’s actions, stating, “Families who rely on SNAP are still recovering from the whiplash of the recent government shutdown.” This reference to the shutdown highlights the ongoing challenges faced by families in securing vital food assistance in light of shifting federal policies.

The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant repercussions for thousands of individuals who depend on SNAP for their basic nutritional needs, further illuminating the intersection of immigration policy and food security in the United States.