Attorney General Charity Clark has joined 21 other attorneys general in a lawsuit challenging recent guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding eligibility for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The legal action aims to prevent what the coalition describes as an unlawful exclusion of thousands of lawful permanent residents, including those who have been granted asylum or admitted as refugees, from receiving food assistance.
The lawsuit claims that the USDA’s new interpretation contradicts existing federal law by deeming certain groups of legal immigrants permanently ineligible for SNAP benefits, even after they become lawful permanent residents. The coalition argues that noncompliance with this guidance could subject states to significant financial penalties and is asking the court to declare the USDA’s directive unlawful.
“The Trump Administration is failing the most vulnerable people, leaving states in the impossible position of trying to comply with confusing and incredibly poorly timed guidance, all while fearful of massive penalties that could be held against us for errors,” said Attorney General Clark. “I am suing because in America, no child should go hungry.”
On October 31, the USDA issued new guidance outlining changes to SNAP eligibility under legislation referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” This bill narrowed eligibility for some non-citizen groups. However, according to Attorney General Clark and her counterparts, the USDA memo inaccurately stated that individuals who entered through humanitarian programs would remain permanently ineligible for SNAP—even after obtaining green cards. The coalition had previously requested clarification or correction from the USDA but has not received a response.
The attorneys general maintain that neither the referenced bill nor any other federal statute supports this restriction. Federal law provides that refugees, asylees, humanitarian parolees, and others may become eligible for SNAP upon receiving their green cards if they meet program requirements. They argue that the USDA’s new memo unlawfully alters these rules and could result in eligible individuals losing access to food assistance.
Additionally, the lawsuit contends that USDA misapplied its own regulations concerning a 120-day grace period intended for states to adjust their systems following new guidance. According to federal rules, this period cannot begin until official issuance of such guidance; however, USDA asserted it expired just one day after release—before states had time to review or implement changes.
The attorneys general caution that this sudden policy shift will create confusion among families relying on food assistance and force states into a dilemma: either deny benefits to eligible recipients or face heavy financial penalties due to errors stemming from unclear instructions.
They are seeking a court order vacating the disputed guidance and preventing its implementation so families retain access to needed support and states avoid punitive measures.
A copy of the complaint can be found on Vermont’s Attorney General website. This marks Attorney General Clark’s 36th case against actions taken by President Trump’s administration since January.
