A federal judge on June 5 blocked the Trump administration from enforcing new conditions tied to federal nutrition funding, including SNAP, in a preliminary injunction that 20 states and Washington, D.C. sought. The ruling pauses USDA’s compliance requirements
On a Friday morning, June 5, the federal courtroom in Boston delivered a result that feels immediate to families who depend on food assistance—and to the stores that see the ripple effect when benefits become unpredictable.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun granted a preliminary injunction requested by 20 states and the District of Columbia, stopping the U.S. Department of Agriculture from enforcing new conditions tied to billions of dollars in federal nutrition funding. The decision temporarily halts the administration’s effort to require states to certify compliance with a broad set of federal policy priorities in order to keep receiving funding.
The SNAP rules at the center of the dispute matter to roughly 39 million Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to buy groceries. But the court fight is not limited to SNAP. The challenged requirements also reached other USDA grants and programs that states administer.
Judge Joun said he would issue a written memorandum explaining the decision at a later date.
The states’ argument is that USDA exceeded its authority and created obstacles where Congress had already authorized programs. The lawsuit. filed in March by a coalition of Democratic attorneys general. challenged USDA directives requiring states to certify compliance with various federal “policies” to continue receiving funding.
In court filings. the disputed conditions included provisions related to immigration. “gender ideology. ” and “fair athletic opportunities” for women and girls. The states argued the requirements were vague. unrelated to nutrition and agriculture programs. and added without the kind of legal procedures they say are required for rules of that scope.
They framed the issue as a disconnect between federally authorized nutrition and agriculture programs and the conditions the administration sought to attach to funding. In their complaint. the states said USDA placed “unconstitutional and unlawful roadblocks” between the programs Congress authorized and the states that administer them—roadblocks they argued could threaten nutrition assistance. agricultural research. and food supply systems while the case continues.
The administration, in response, defended the oversight measures. Government attorneys argued the conditions were designed to strengthen federal oversight of taxpayer-funded programs. In court filings. administration lawyers said the requirements would promote responsible stewardship of federal funds. improve USDA oversight. and ensure recipients comply with federal laws. regulations. and policies.
The Trump administration has also pointed out that if states must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws to receive federal funding, other federal policies should be treated similarly.
The fight has broad implications because the lawsuit argues the conditions could extend beyond SNAP to school meal programs and to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC.
The states’ coalition is large and, as described in court filings, costly to lose. The states collectively receive more than $74 billion annually through USDA programs. That scale is part of why the injunction is significant: it pauses a funding lever states say could affect multiple nutrition channels at once.
For Massachusetts, the ruling landed with direct political and personal emphasis. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell praised the decision on social media, calling USDA grants “a lifeline” for families. New York Attorney General Letitia James also welcomed the decision. saying her office would continue fighting to protect federal funding while the lawsuit proceeds.
There is a clear tension running through the case as it stands now: the administration sees compliance conditions as oversight and enforcement of federal policy. while the states argue those conditions are too disconnected from nutrition and agriculture to be imposed through USDA grants without proper legal grounding. For families. and for the food assistance infrastructure built to serve them. that dispute is not abstract—it’s about whether benefits keep flowing without new. court-contested strings attached.
SNAP Trump administration USDA federal nutrition funding preliminary injunction Myong Joun 20 states Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell New York Attorney General Letitia James WIC school meal programs food assistance