New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin has joined 21 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to prevent the federal government from implementing new guidance that would end Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for many lawful permanent residents. The coalition seeks to block recent instructions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which, according to the attorneys general, wrongly classify several groups of legal immigrants—including those who have been granted asylum or admitted as refugees—as ineligible for food assistance.
“Once again, the Trump Administration is trying to take food from the tables of families in New Jersey – legal residents who pay taxes and did everything right – for no reason other than illegal and abject cruelty,” said Attorney General Platkin. “Cutting SNAP benefits to legal residents is unlawful, unnecessary, and unthinkable at a time when families are having harder and harder time affording basic groceries. We are taking the Trump Administration to court and fighting to uphold the law so that our neighbors can feed their families.”
The USDA issued new guidance on October 31 to state SNAP agencies about changes in program eligibility under the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” This guidance narrowed eligibility for certain non-citizen groups such as refugees, recipients of asylum, and others admitted through humanitarian programs. The USDA memo indicated that all individuals entering through these humanitarian pathways would remain permanently ineligible for SNAP—even after obtaining green cards and becoming lawful permanent residents.
Attorney General Platkin and his colleagues point out that neither the “One Big Beautiful Bill” nor any other federal statute supports this interpretation. They argue that current laws specify that refugees, asylees, humanitarian parolees, individuals with withheld deportation, and similar groups become eligible for SNAP once they secure lawful permanent resident status and meet standard requirements.
The lawsuit further claims that USDA’s guidance misapplies its own regulations regarding implementation timelines. Federal rules allow states a 120-day grace period after new guidance is issued before penalties apply; however, USDA has asserted this period ended just one day after issuing its memo—leaving states without adequate time to review or adjust systems. The coalition contends this violates USDA’s own rules because the 120-day window should start only after official issuance of guidance.
As a result of USDA’s abrupt change, states face challenges updating their eligibility systems immediately, potentially leading to confusion among affected families and increasing risks of wrongful benefit terminations. The attorneys general warn this could undermine public trust and force states into a position where they must either break federal law or risk significant financial penalties.
The lawsuit was led by New York and Oregon attorneys general alongside Platkin. Other participating states include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin as well as the District of Columbia.
