Preliminary Injunction Against USDA
A federal judge has halted the Trump administration’s attempt to enforce new conditions on billion-dollar Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding. The injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, supports the stance taken by 19 Democratic-led states and Washington, D.C. These states claimed the new requirements endangered vital programs for low-income families.
The judge’s decision prevents the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from implementing the new conditions while the legal dispute continues. Despite government objections, the judge granted the injunction. The USDA argued the changes aimed to improve federal fund oversight, but a detailed memorandum explaining the judge’s decision will follow later.
SNAP benefits help millions of low-income households purchase groceries across the United States. Roughly 38 million people benefit from these programs, though the number has decreased since the second Trump administration started in January 2025.
Democratic States Oppose New Conditions
In March 2026, a coalition of Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit against the USDA, arguing that new funding conditions were unlawfully imposed. The plaintiff states receive over $74 billion annually and believed the changes risked essential programs.
The USDA directive from late 2025 required states to certify compliance with federal policies to secure funding. The lawsuit contested these conditions, known as the “2026 Conditions,” affecting various USDA programs, grants, and agreements. State attorneys general called the requirements vague, potentially requiring compliance beyond agriculture or nutrition programs.
Challenges included concerns about “gender ideology,” “immigration,” and “fair athletic opportunities” for women and girls. The states claimed the USDA obstructed programs created by Congress, endangering critical nutrition support and agricultural research, along with food chain safety.
States argued the USDA lacked authority, asserting the requirements violated the Constitution’s Spending Clause and were improperly implemented. Affected programs include SNAP, school lunch, and WIC.
The states involved are Massachusetts, California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
Trump Administration’s Defense
Government lawyers opposed the injunction, asserting the conditions aimed to enhance federal fund oversight. In court filings, they stated the requirements would promote taxpayer dollar stewardship, empower USDA control, and ensure grant recipient compliance with federal laws and policies.
The Trump administration argued federal anti-discrimination laws and regulations should apply to such funding decisions.
State Attorneys General Respond
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell expressed satisfaction with the decision on Bluesky, stating: “When Trump tried to gut billions in USDA funding for states rejecting his anti-immigrant agenda, we sued. The court ruled in our favor, blocking his cuts while our case proceeds. These grants are crucial—I will always fight to protect food assistance for families.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James celebrated the ruling on X, posting: “We won a court order safeguarding billions in @USDA funding as our lawsuit continues. My office will persist in protecting New Yorkers and resisting federal punitive measures against our state.”