Six weeks after it was issued, a Trump administration regulation that would eliminate food stamps for 688,000 people is being challenged in U.S. district court by 14 states and the District of Columbia. Their lawsuit, filed on Thursday in Washington, asks for the rule to be overturned as unlawful and for an injunction to keep it from taking effect on April 1.
The rule would more stringently apply a 90-day limit on SNAP benefits for able-bodied adults who do not work at least 20 hours a week. It is the first of three proposed USDA regulations that would restrict eligibility for food stamps and disqualify a combined 3.7 million people, or one of every 11 participants in the largest U.S. anti-hunger program, according to an Urban Institute estimate.
“The federal government’s latest assault on vulnerable individuals is cruel to its core,” said New York State Attorney General Letitia James. Karl Racine, attorney general for the District of Columbia, said the lawsuit would protect SNAP recipients nationwide from “an administration that is attempting another end run around Congress.” James and Racine are co-leaders of the coalition that brought the lawsuit.
The administration says that with unemployment at low levels, this is a good time to move SNAP recipients into employment or up the wage ladder. Critics say eliminating food assistance will not create jobs. A USDA spokesperson was not immediately available to comment on the lawsuit.
After lawmakers rejected broader and stricter SNAP work requirements in the 2018 farm law, the administration proposed tougher regulations on its own. In this case, the USDA would restrict the power of states to waive the usual limit on food stamps — 90 days in a three-year period — for able-bodied adults aged 18 to 49 without dependents who do not work at least 20 hours a week or take part in job training or workfare. The 90-day limit on food stamps for these so-called ABAWDs was created in the 1996 welfare reform law.
Under the new USDA rule, waivers would no longer be allowed for what are known as “labor surplus” areas. They would be limited to smaller geographic areas than in the past, and a higher jobless rate, 6 percent, would be required for a waiver. A 12-month lifetime would be set for waivers. The USDA says the new rule will reduce SNAP spending by more than $1 billion a year.
“The rule at issue … upends USDA’s longstanding policy by significantly limiting states’ discretion to seek waivers and use exemptions,” says the lawsuit. “The rule unequivocally runs afoul of Congress’s intent to ensure food security for low-income individuals and to permit states, who have a better understanding of their labor markets and economic conditions, to apply for waivers and use exemptions where local or individual circumstances warrant relief.”
Joining New York State and the District of Columbia in the lawsuit were California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. New York City is also a plaintiff.
Pending at the USDA is a regulation that would restrict the use of so-called categorical eligibility, which allows states to modify asset tests and income limits so people who receive social services can be considered for SNAP. It would also change the formula for calculating utility costs, a factor in determining SNAP benefits. The “cat el” rule would eliminate food stamps for 3 million people. The change in the utility formula would affect fewer than 8,000 households.
The text of the lawsuit is available here.