California Attorney General Sues USDA over Exclusion of Refugee SNAP Recipients 

---

This article was underwritten in part by the Mickey Flacks Journalism Fund for Social Justice, a proud, innovative supporter of local news. To make a contribution go to sbcan.org/journalism_fund.

---

Court battles over the country’s largest federal food assistance program continue. On November 26, California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined 21 other attorneys general in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The lawsuit alleges that the USDA has issued guidelines illegally restricting who will be eligible for SNAP benefits. 

“The Trump administration is effectively depriving thousands of lawful permanent residents of food assistance benefits that Congress intended to be available,” Attorney General Bonta said in a press release sent out on November 26, the day before Thanksgiving. 

SNAP, which stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, helps more than 41 million people nationwide and more than 55,000 people in Santa Barbara County afford groceries. Low-income people who meet federal requirements can receive the benefits. Only certain noncitizens are eligible for SNAP, including legal permanent residents (green card holders) and humanitarian entrants (such as refugees, people seeking asylum, and victims of human trafficking). 

Fewer noncitizens will be able to apply for the benefits next year. Federal legislation passed as part of the “Big Beautiful Bill,” a key piece of President Trump’s domestic policy agenda, removes humanitarian entrants’ eligibility to receive the benefits unless they hold a green card. 

Bonta’s lawsuit alleges that the USDA incorrectly lists these entrants as ineligible for SNAP full-stop. Rather, in the lawsuit Bonta and other attorneys general say that these people could become eligible once they are legal permanent residents. The attorneys general also allege that the USDA incorrectly says humanitarian entrants must wait five years after becoming legal residents to be eligible for SNAP. Legally, the lawsuit says, once they become legal residents, they should qualify immediately. 

The USDA’s timeline in releasing these guidelines is also called into question. The lawsuit says that USDA waited until October 31, nearly four months after the bill passed, to issue guidance on the SNAP changes. It alleges that the department incorrectly said the exclusionary period (the time states have to implement the changes) ended on November 1, the following day, rather than after the 120 days required by the department itself. 

The Big Beautiful Bill, according to the lawsuit, created a “set of massive penalties tied to State error rates in issuing payments to SNAP beneficiaries.” In other words, states would be penalized for not immediately implementing the USDA’s guidelines on eligibility. 

Earlier in November, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins claimed that there is widespread fraud in SNAP and proposed requiring that people reapply for their benefits. 

This court battle comes on the heels of a turbulent November, wherein, due to the government shutdown, the USDA did not release SNAP benefits on November 1. That decision played out in court, with a back-and-forth on whether and how much the USDA had to release the benefits, and included Attorney General Bonta, alongside several other state attorneys general, filing lawsuits against the USDA.  

In Santa Barbara County, food insecurity is growing, up 6 percent in fiscal year 24/25 compared to the year prior.