Oregon – Attorney General Dan Rayfield is now in the national spotlight because he is leading a multistate lawsuit to stop what he and 21 other attorneys general call an illegal attempt to cut off food aid for thousands of lawful permanent residents. The group says that the new guidelines from the U.S. Department of Agriculture incorrectly says that certain groups of legal immigrants are not eligible for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. The court challenge is trying to stop this from happening. The filing says that the agency’s interpretation goes against federal law, puts families who are eligible for help at danger, and could cost states a lot of money if it is put into effect.
On October 31, the USDA sent out information on changes to who could get benefits under the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” The memo told state agencies that refugees, asylum seekers, humanitarian parolees, and those who were let into the country under federal humanitarian programs may stay permanently out of SNAP, even after they got green cards and became lawful permanent residents. Rayfield and his colleagues argue that this decision is unjust, not backed up by law, and goes against what SNAP has required in the past. They say that once these groups get lawful permanent resident status and follow the conditions for the program, federal law makes them eligible.
Rayfield expressed frustration that the dispute has unfolded on the eve of a major holiday known for families and shared meals.
“It’s wild that we’re here the day before Thanksgiving,” said Attorney General Rayfield. “We’re the wealthiest country in the world, and no one should go hungry. When this memo came out, we thought it must be a mistake. The law is clear, and this is not how you treat people.”
The lawsuit brings up another problem besides eligibility: the USDA’s contention that the 120-day adjustment period for states had ended just one day after the guidance was made public. Attorneys general say that this interpretation makes it impossible to follow the law and puts states at risk of fines without giving them a true opportunity to make changes. They say that the sudden order might lead to unlawful benefit terminations, hurt families who depend on food assistance, and put states in a position where they have to choose between breaching federal law or paying a lot of money in damages.
Rayfield and New York Attorney General Letitia James co-lead the coalition, which includes attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
Together, they are seeking the court to throw down the directive and stop it from going into effect. They say that access to food for legal residents shouldn’t depend on an administrative reinterpretation that goes against the law and past decisions.
