January 16, 2020
15 Attorneys General and New York City Allege the
USDA Attempted to Circumvent Congress with Unlawful Food Stamp Rule Change
Carson City, NV – Today, Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford
joined a group of 15 attorneys general and New York City in a lawsuit to
prevent the Trump Administration from eliminating food assistance for nearly 700,000
Americans. The lawsuit challenges a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rule
that would limit states’ ability to extend benefits from the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as “food stamps,” beyond a
three-month period for certain adults. AG Ford and his colleagues assert that
the rule directly undermines Congress’ intent for the food-stamp program, and
that the USDA violated the federal rulemaking process. Furthermore, they argue
that the rule would impose significant regulatory burdens on the states and
harm states’ residents and economies. The coalition is urging the Court to
declare the rule unlawful and issue an injunction to prevent it from taking
effect.
“SNAP has served as
our country’s primary response to hunger since 1977, including my own when I
was a young, single father and college student,” said AG Ford. “46,000
Nevadans stand to lose their food stamp benefits if this rule moves forward,
including nearly 2,000 Nevadans in our rural communities. My office is taking a
stand against the Trump Administration’s attempt to cut this important
safety-net program proven to help people lift themselves out of poverty.”
The SNAP program
provides access to nutrition for millions of Americans with limited incomes who
would otherwise struggle with food insecurity. Many Nevadans rely on SNAP
benefits, including nearly 2,000 Nevadans in our rural counties of Esmeralda,
Lyon and Nye. While the federal government pays the full cost of SNAP benefits,
it shares the costs of administering the program on a 50-50 basis with the
states, which operate the program.
Congress amended
SNAP in 1996 with the goal of encouraging greater workforce participation among
beneficiaries. The changes introduced a three-month time limit on SNAP benefits
for unemployed individuals aged 18 to 49 who are not disabled or raising
children—"able-bodied adults without dependents” (ABAWDs). Congress
understood that states were best positioned to assess whether local economic
conditions and labor markets provided ABAWDs reasonable employment
opportunities. As a result, the law allows a state to acquire a waiver of the
ABAWD time limit for areas where the unemployment rate is above 10 percent, or
if it presents data demonstrating that the area lacks sufficient jobs for
ABAWDs. States also were given a limited number of one-month exemptions for
individuals who would otherwise lose benefits under the time limit and were permitted
to carry over unused exemptions to safeguard against sudden economic downturns.
Over the last 24
years, Congress has maintained the criteria for states to obtain waivers and to
carry over unused exemptions. It has reauthorized the statute four times
without limiting states’ discretion over these matters. House Republicans
considered adding restrictions on waivers and carryovers in the 2018 Farm Bill,
but a bipartisan coalition expressly rejected them in the final legislation.
Shortly after
President Trump signed the 2018 Farm Bill into law, USDA announced a proposed
rule seeking changes almost identical to those Congress rejected. USDA received
more than 100,000 comments in total—the majority of which reflected strong
opposition from a broad range of stakeholders. Regardless, USDA’s final rule
went even further in restricting state discretion over waivers and exemptions
than what it had initially proposed.
In the lawsuit, the
states collectively argue that the administration’s rule:
- Contradicts statutory
language and Congress’s intent for the food-stamp program: When Congress amended SNAP and added the
ABAWD time limit in 1996, it included a waiver process explicitly providing for
relief from the time limit if insufficient job opportunities were available for
ABAWDs and clearly indicating that states were best equipped to make this
determination based on local economic and employment conditions. Congress has
reaffirmed this position multiple times, most recently in 2018. Yet USDA’s new
rule severely restricts states’ discretion over these matters and essentially
writes this basis for waiver out of the statute, in direct contravention of law
and congressional intent. Major aspects of the rule mirror proposed changes
that Congress explicitly rejected in 2018.
- Raises healthcare and
homelessness costs while lowering economic activity in the states: For SNAP recipients, losing benefits means
losing critical access to food, raising the risk of malnutrition and other
negative health effects. Studies have
shown that SNAP can counteract food insecurity and lower healthcare costs for
recipients by about $1,400 per person—costs that state governments will likely
bear in the absence of SNAP assistance. Without SNAP benefits, many will be
forced to choose between having food to eat or a place to live. Their
purchasing power will decrease, harming state economies. As USDA concedes in
the rule, these impacts will be most concentrated among lower-income
communities of color
- Amends the law for
arbitrary and capricious reasons: The APA requires agencies to offer a reasoned explanation for changing
long-held policies and address why the facts and circumstances supporting the
prior policy should be disregarded. For over two decades, USDA has accepted
Congress’s premise that a state should define the geographic scope of its
waiver request and support that request with a wide range of data sources that
are together best able to capture employment prospects for ABAWDs. Yet the new
rule strictly defines the area for which waivers may be sought and rejects data
beyond general unemployment figures without any justification.
- Violates the federal
rulemaking process: The Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) governs internal procedures for federal agencies, including
rulemaking. Among other requirements, agencies must solicit and consider public
comments on the substance of a rule. USDA broke from this process by issuing a
final rule that diverged from its proposed rule in significant ways. For
example, while the proposed rule maintained that a state could receive a waiver
if it qualified for extended unemployment benefits under Department of Labor
policies, the final rule eliminated this basis. Thus, commenters did not
receive meaningful opportunity to comment on the full extent of the agency’s
changes.
In addition to
Nevada, other states participating in this action include: California,
Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
and Virginia, along with the City of New York. The lawsuit was filed in United
States District Court for the District of Columbia. The States filed a Motion
for Preliminary Injunction concurrently with the complaint to enjoin the rule
from going into effect on April 1, 2020.
The filed complaint
is attached.
###