A federal judge on Friday, June 5, blocked the Trump administration from enforcing new conditions on billions of dollars in federal nutrition funding, siding with a coalition of Democratic-led states that argued the requirements threatened programs serving low-income families.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun granted a preliminary injunction sought by 20 states and the District of Columbia, temporarily halting the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s effort to tie funding to compliance with a range of federal policy priorities, according to reports from AP News, Newsweek and Reuters.
The challenged requirements applied to USDA grants and programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which helps roughly 39 million Americans buy groceries. States argued the new conditions jeopardized funding already approved by Congress and could disrupt critical food assistance programs while the lawsuit moves forward.
Joun, who sits on the federal bench in Boston, said he would issue a written memorandum explaining his decision at a later date.
States Say USDA Exceeded Its Authority
The lawsuit, filed in March by a coalition of Democratic attorneys general, challenged USDA directives that required states to certify compliance with various federal “policies” to continue receiving funding.
According to court filings, the disputed conditions included provisions related to immigration, “gender ideology” and “fair athletic opportunities” for women and girls. The states argued the requirements were vague, unrelated to nutrition and agriculture programs, and imposed without proper legal procedures.
In the complaint, the states said USDA had placed “unconstitutional and unlawful roadblocks” between federally authorized programs and the states that administer them, threatening nutrition assistance, agricultural research and food supply systems.
The plaintiffs include Massachusetts, California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, Colorado and several other Democratic-led states, along with Washington, DC.
Administration Defends Oversight Measures
Government attorneys opposed the injunction, arguing the conditions were intended to strengthen federal oversight of taxpayer-funded programs.
In court filings, administration lawyers said the requirements would promote responsible stewardship of federal funds, improve USDA oversight and ensure recipients comply with federal laws, regulations and policies.
The Trump administration has also argued that if states must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws to receive federal funding, other federal policies should be treated similarly.
Funding Fight Has Broad Implications
The case extends beyond SNAP. According to the lawsuit, the conditions could also affect school meal programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC.
The states collectively receive more than $74 billion annually through USDA programs, according to court filings.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell praised the ruling on social media, calling USDA grants “a lifeline” for families. New York Attorney General Letitia James also welcomed the decision, saying her office would continue fighting to protect federal funding while the lawsuit proceeds.
-1024x768.jpg "Red Snapper Used as Cudgel by Fed Judge")
