Judge blocks feds from tying funding to food stamp data

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge Thursday temporarily blocked the government from withholding funding from states that refuse to provide the personal information of people who receive food stamps.

U.S. Senior District Judge Maxine Chesney granted a temporary restraining order to all but one state suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over its demand that states turn over certain Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) records to the government.

“The court finds plaintiff states are likely to show the SNAP Act prohibits them from disclosing to USDA the information demanded in the formal warnings and, consequently, that they have shown a likelihood of success on their claim that USDA, in making such demand, acted in a manner contrary to law,” the Bill Clinton appointee said in her order.

The only state not included in the relief is Nevada, which Chesney said did not file a declaration explaining that withholding SNAP funds would hinder its ability to administer benefits to individuals like the other plaintiff states. She added that the USDA provided evidence that Nevada  “had fully complied with USDA’s request for SNAP data” as of Aug. 12.

SNAP is funded by the federal government and administered by the states. Billions of dollars flow through the program, which helps participants put food on their tables. Information requested by the government includes Social Security numbers and home addresses for the past five years.

A coalition of states led by California argues that President Donald Trump seeks to build a database of people’s information to target immigrants. The White House says the information is needed for transparency, but the states say the Trump administration is rewriting the rules to punish those who use SNAP.

“This demand isn’t about preventing waste, fraud and abuse,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said at a press conference announcing the lawsuit: “[Trump’s] rewriting the rules, targeting the most vulnerable and expected states to fall in line. Not California.”

In her order, Chesney said that the USDA has “strict regulations” on the use of information and that the agency has “announced its intent to use such information in ways well beyond those permitted.” She added that states are required by law to protect the information they receive from applicant households and can only disclose it for limited purposes.

She also found that the plaintiff states would suffer irreparable harm without relief, citing declarations from states explaining that withholding SNAP funds would likely require them to cut staff and reduce their ability to administer SNAP benefits.

“The amount of SNAP funds the USDA has formally warned it will disallow if plaintiff states do not comply equals, for at least 17 of the 22 plaintiff states, the entirety, or close to it, of the amounts to which those states otherwise would be entitled,” she said.

However, Chesney found that other arguments the plaintiffs made are unlikely to succeed or raise “serious questions,” including their claim that the USDA failed to provide an explanation for the change in its policy.

State attorneys general involved in the suit celebrated the ruling. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said that no one should have to “choose between putting food on the table and protecting their family’s privacy.”

“This ruling means parents can keep feeding their kids without worrying that their personal information will be misused or turned against them. SNAP is about fighting hunger, not about immigration enforcement,” he said.

A representative for the USDA said the department does not comment on pending litigation.

A hearing for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for Oct. 9.

Follow @mhattridge_