Federal judge hesitant to dismiss Minnesota suit over SNAP funding

ST. PAUL, Minn. (CN) — The U.S. Department of Agriculture urged a federal judge Tuesday to throw out Minnesota’s suit challenging the government’s attempts to freeze the state’s food assistance funds.During the motion to dismiss hearing, the USDA said Minnesota jumped the gun by taking legal action before any Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program money was withheld, meaning there was no “final agency action” for the court to review.“They bypassed all of this to get to the court,” USDA attorney Adline Momoh said. “That demonstrates the very nature of what they’re trying to do, they’re trying to bypass the administrative review scheme.”State attorneys countered Minnesota was under no legal obligation to exhaust administrative appeals before coming to court, arguing the USDA skirted noncompliance procedures when it abruptly threatened to pull SNAP funding.“It is such an unbelievable claim to power that they could waive the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act to themselves and promulgate new rules,” Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Joseph Richie said.U.S. District Judge Laura Provinzino seemed to agree.“It strikes me in very blunt terms that Minnesota just wants the USDA to comply with the law,” the Joe Biden appointee said.She also struggled to see how the three separate letters issued to state leaders in December and January did not constitute final agency action.These letters began with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ demand in December 2025 — one week before Minnesota filed its suit — requiring the state to recertify SNAP eligibility of over 100,000 households in the state in 30 days.The second outlined intention to withhold USDA grant funding to the state, and the third was handed to attorneys the day of January’s preliminary injunction hearing — a notice that all of Minnesota’s first-quarter 2026 SNAP funding would be withheld.“It’s clearly final agency action,” Provinzino said of the letters Tuesday. “I don’t see any other argument.”Provinzino’s swift granting of the state’s preliminary injunction halted any implementation of the government’s demands.Months later, the USDA contends there has been no evidence of any suspension, disallowance or withdrawal of SNAP funding.“We don’t have a situation where the state of Minnesota is being immediately harmed,” Momoh said. “They’ve put forward no evidence that the suspension even happened, let alone that the suspension or harm is continuing.”Provinzino pushed back sharply on that logic, finding it likely the main reason funds had not been cut was due to her January order.While largely disagreeing with the government’s stance, the judge wrestled with how to evaluate a case where months have passed without any money actually being withheld, suggesting the government may have a case for mootness.Minnesota, however, worries harm will occur immediately if the case is dismissed given the USDA’s belief that its actions were entirely legal.“What would happen tomorrow if the court dismissed the case?” Richie asked. “They threatened to end SNAP in Minnesota, and they threatened to withhold administrative funding. We are at serious risk of those penalties that were promised.”The government argues federal statutes allow the secretary of Agriculture to conduct pilot or experimental trial projects in states to improve SNAP administration — adding the burden placed on Minnesota is minimal, and in line with long-standing recertification procedures.“The state disagreeing with USDA’s decision-making and what it considered are not the same,” Momoh said. “It’s clear the agency considered the program integrity of SNAP, the USDA considered fraud, ongoing fraud in the state.”The government contends Minnesota’s suit is a “politically motivated” attempt to thwart federal efforts to investigate potential fraudulent payments in the state’s food assistance programs — though Minnesota positions itself as the true victim of political retribution.The state claims pilot projects were not designed to be used as a weapon to bypass standard procedures.Provinzino said in January Minnesota was already in compliance with all relevant SNAP requirements and statutes, sympathizing with the state that the demands were nearly impossible to meet.Congress created SNAP to ensure low-income households had purchasing power to afford a healthy diet and create a consistent market for American farmers.It remains the nation’s largest anti-hunger initiative.Around 440,000 individuals receive SNAP benefits in Minnesota in an average month, and around half of that number were ordered to be recertified in the December letter.Minnesota claims the Trump administration has used SNAP as a political weapon by unlawfully demanding sensitive and protected data and withholding benefits during the government shutdown in October 2025 and beyond, despite having billions of dollars in contingency funding.Minnesota’s payment error rate, which includes both over and underpayments, was 12.6% in fiscal year 2025 — up from around 9% in 2024 and slightly higher than the national average of 10.6%.As SNAP includes sensitive data such as home addresses, Social Security numbers and household income for millions of Americans, Minnesota claims the federal government typically requests limited data for certification.That direction has shifted in President Trump’s second term, with the USDA broadly requesting states turn over nearly all of their sensitive SNAP records since January 2020 — threatening those who do not comply with funding cuts.In 2025, a 21-state coalition including Minnesota sued the USDA to block such demands for personal data from SNAP applicants. A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against the government in October.A similar coalition filed another lawsuit against the Trump administration in March challenging the USDA’s 2026 funding conditions forcing states to comply with policy requirements or risk losing funding.Provinzino closed out Tuesday’s hearing with a request for state and federal attorneys to confer and come to some form of agreement, though both admitted that would be tough to reach.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads