Minnesota Blocks USDA SNAP Funding Freeze Amid Lawsuit

• A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed by Minnesota against the USDA over attempts to freeze SNAP funding.
• The USDA argued that Minnesota jumped the gun by taking legal action before any SNAP money was withheld, but the judge granted an injunction blocking the USDA's actions.
• The case centers around the USDA's assertion that it can unilaterally withhold SNAP funding from states without following established administrative procedures.
• Minnesota argues that this claim is an abuse of power and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
• The outcome of the lawsuit, currently under appeal, has significant implications for states like Minnesota that rely on SNAP funding.

A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed by Minnesota against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over the agency's attempts to freeze the state's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding. The USDA had urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that Minnesota jumped the gun by taking legal action before any SNAP money was withheld. However, the judge seemed skeptical of this claim, pointing out that the USDA had issued several letters to state leaders in December and January demanding recertification of over 100,000 households within 30 days and threatening to withhold funding if not complied with. The judge also noted that these letters constituted final agency action, which would allow the court to review the matter. On January 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted a preliminary injunction, blocking the USDA from withholding certain SNAP funding to Minnesota based on the agency's verification request. The court found Minnesota's SNAP recertification procedure complied with federal law. The USDA moved to appeal the injunction on January 17, 2026, and as of February 6, 2026, the case remains ongoing.

The lawsuit centers around the USDA's assertion that it can unilaterally withhold SNAP funding from states without following established administrative procedures. The state of Minnesota argues that this claim is an abuse of power and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires agencies to follow certain procedures before taking action against states. The APA waiver claimed by the USDA would allow them to bypass these procedures, but the judge seemed unconvinced by this argument. The case highlights the tension between state and federal authority in administering SNAP programs, with Minnesota seeking to protect its residents' access to food assistance while the USDA seeks to enforce what it sees as necessary measures to prevent fraud.

The outcome of this lawsuit has significant implications for states like Minnesota that rely on SNAP funding. If the court's preliminary injunction is upheld, it would reinforce the importance of administrative procedures in ensuring that states are treated fairly and consistently by the USDA. Conversely, if the USDA's appeal is successful, it could set a precedent allowing the agency to unilaterally withhold funding from states without following established procedures, giving the federal government broad discretion over state programs and potentially undermining the authority of state governments to administer their own SNAP programs.

A lawyer advising a client in Minnesota on compliance with SNAP regulations should be aware of the potential for USDA to unilaterally withhold funding and take steps to ensure timely recertification of eligible households, as failure to do so may lead to penalties or even loss of funding.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service