Federal Court Halts Agriculture Department's SNAP Data Demand
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) demand for state data on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients will likely cause irreparable harm if not blocked, and is contrary to the SNAP Act, a federal court ruled Wednesday as it granted more than 20 states a preliminary injunction.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
The U.S. District Court for Northern California halted the data collection and blocked the USDA from disallowing funding based on states' noncompliance with the demand.
“The amount of SNAP funds the USDA has formally warned it will disallow if Plaintiff States do not comply equals, for at least 18 of the 22 Plaintiff States, the entirety, or close to it, of the amounts to which those States otherwise would be entitled.” This likely would result in states cutting staff "and otherwise greatly reduce their ability to comply with their obligations under the SNAP Act,” said Judge Maxine Chesney.
In addition, the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff states' argument that the USDA and state agencies had to “agree to data and security protocols before the State agency is required to provide the SNAP records demanded by USDA.” As that didn't happen, the states can't be "required to submit the data or be sanctioned for failing to do so ... ."
However, Chesney ruled the states “failed to make the requisite showing” on other claims, including that the USDA violated the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Computer Matching Act. She also ruled that the agency’s demand for SNAP data was not a change in its longstanding policy, since there's no policy about SNAP data collection.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) celebrated the win in a press release Wednesday. “Let’s be crystal clear: The President is trying to hijack a nutrition program to fuel his mass surveillance agenda,” he said. "We will continue to vigorously litigate this lawsuit and defend our communities, protect privacy, and ensure that SNAP remains a tool for fighting hunger -- not a weapon for political targeting.”
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) said she was “proud” of the ruling that prevented “Donald Trump’s illegal demand that states hand over sensitive data about families who rely on food assistance,” calling it “an outrageous abuse of power” in a press release Wednesday.
“Arizonans who turn to SNAP to feed their families should not have to fear that their personal information will be swept into Trump’s mass surveillance agenda,” she added.
“The Trump Administration tried to corner Michiganders into an impossible choice: surrender your privacy or go hungry,” said Michigan AG Dana Nessel (D) in her own release praising the district court ruling Thursday.
Case 3:25-cv-06310 is centered around a coalition of states that argue the USDA's data demand is a violation of privacy and other laws (see 2508190046). The court previously granted states a temporary restraining order to block the data collection (see 2509190015), despite the federal agency’s continued arguments that its actions are lawful (see 2509030046).
USDA doesn't comment on pending litigation, a spokesperson said.