New Jersey Sues Trump Administration for Abrupt Snap Benefit Reversal

NEW JERSEY — Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General have joined a coalition of 22 states and three governors in obtaining a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), following what plaintiffs describe as an unlawful and abrupt reversal of guidance regarding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on November 9, 2025, the amended TRO motion sought to block the USDA from forcing states to “undo” the distribution of full SNAP benefits that were authorized earlier that week. Shortly after filing, the court granted the TRO and scheduled an emergency virtual hearing.

“We will not stand by as the Trump Administration attempts to rip food away from the tables of New Jerseyans on SNAP benefits,” said Attorney General Platkin. “New Jersey SNAP recipients have access to their full November 2025 benefits, and we are fighting to ensure that they remain able to feed their families. We are grateful that the Court has already blocked the Trump Administration’s reckless and illegal attempts to revoke SNAP funds and look forward to making our case in court to permanently stop them from harming families in New Jersey."

Background of the Dispute

On November 7, the USDA informed state governments that it would comply with a federal court order from Rhode Island directing the agency to issue full SNAP benefits. The agency advised states, including New Jersey, that the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) would complete all necessary steps to fund those benefits that day.

In reliance on this guidance, states began transmitting full SNAP benefits to eligible recipients. By the following day, many households—including in New Jersey—had already used these benefits to purchase essential groceries.

However, late on November 8, the USDA reversed its position, issuing a directive that states must "undo" the benefit distributions, warning that failure to do so could result in cancellation of federal cost-sharing and potential financial liability for states due to "overissuances."

In their motion, the plaintiffs describe the reversal as a "final agency action" that violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and places states in an "impossible position"—forced to either disobey a federal court order or risk financial penalties for distributing benefits as instructed.

“Plaintiffs took actions consistent with USDA’s lulling assurances,” the motion states. “Then, late yesterday evening… USDA abruptly demanded that the Plaintiffs ‘undo’ the efforts taken to administer the full benefits.”

The states argue that such a reversal, issued without explanation and with no opportunity for public input, undermines the integrity of the administrative process and causes irreparable harm to states and low-income families relying on SNAP assistance.

New Jersey’s Role

Attorney General Platkin joined the legal action alongside attorneys general from Arizona, California, Minnesota, and 20 other states, as well as the governors of Kansas, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. Representing New Jersey is Assistant Attorney General Kashif T. Chand, who co-signed the motion on behalf of the state.

Legal Relief Requested

In addition to seeking to block the USDA’s November 8 directive, the plaintiffs requested that the court:

• Prevent the USDA from enforcing any penalties or financial repercussions related to the disbursement of full SNAP benefits;

• Affirm that states acted lawfully in issuing benefits based on the original court order and agency guidance;

• Waive any requirement for the plaintiffs to post a bond as part of the TRO process.

What's Next

The TRO remains in effect pending further proceedings. The USDA opposed the motion and requested additional time to respond, citing a scheduling conflict involving a related case in California. However, the court proceeded with the hearing in recognition of the time-sensitive nature of SNAP benefit distribution.

This case underscores ongoing legal tensions surrounding federal nutrition programs and the balance of state-federal responsibilities, particularly during periods of shifting policy under different administrations. The litigation remains active, and further rulings are expected to clarify the status of benefit issuance and the USDA’s authority to reverse course after a judicial mandate.

If you want to learn more about SNAP Benefits and their impact on our society and economy, go to TheMinuteman.org.

For updates, subscribe to our free newsletter!

Support your local news!

Want to understand the news better? Go to TheMinuteman.org to get simple explanations of the trending topics in the news.