California, 13 other states sue to stop Trump’s food stamp cuts
Fourteen states, including California, filed suit Thursday against the Trump administration to block a rule that would eliminate food stamps for an estimated 688,000 Americans.
“No one should have to choose between a hot meal and paying their rent,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “Yet again, the Trump administration has failed to offer any legitimate evidence to justify decisions that have real consequences for the health and well-being of our residents.”
The states, plus Washington, D.C., and New York City, are claiming that the Trump administration failed to follow the steps required to enact such a far-sweeping rule. It’s the latest in a record 65 lawsuits that Becerra has brought against the Trump administration.
The new rule, scheduled to go into effect on April 1, requires that adults without children must work at least 20 hours per week to consistently receive food stamps. In California, that will initially affect about 400,000 Californians, or 11% of people currently getting food stamps, according to the state Department of Social Services.
The social services agency and county welfare departments are scrambling to prepare people who might lose their monthly grocery money from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as CalFresh. Meanwhile, state lawmakers are floating possible workarounds that could blunt the edge of the federal cuts.
Here’s what you need to know about the federal food stamp cuts, the lawsuit and how California is preparing: WHAT THE RULE DOES » Under current federal law, able-bodied adults under the age of 50 with no dependent children must either be working at least 20 hours a week or in vocational training to get food stamps consistently. Otherwise, they can only receive three months of the benefit every three years.
For a decade, states and counties have gotten that limit-waived by demonstrating that the local labormarket made it hard for people to find jobs. All but six California counties— Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, Santa Clara and San Mateo — have waivers.
The new federal rule makes that waiver much more elusive in most of the state. A city or county must have an unemployment rate of at least 6% to qualify. California closed 2019 with a statewide unemployment rate of just under 4%.
An estimated 40 California counties would be subject to the 20-hour work requirement starting April 1, while 18 central and northern counties would be spared initially due to their higher unemployment rates.
WHY DID THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DO IT? » When he announced the rule in December, U. S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said it will restore the original intent of food stamps: “self-sufficiency.”
“We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand,” Perdue said in a statement.
But anti-poverty advocates reject the claim that limiting food stamps will encourage people to work more, citing evidence that food stamp work requirements have failed in other places. The initial proposal spurred more than 140,000 public comments, with many calling the policy outdated and cruel.
The Trump administration says the rule would shave $5.5 billion off the federal budget over five years. Critics counter that each food stamp dollar translates to $1.54 in economic activity, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture calculations. WHY STATES SAY IT’S ILLEGAL » The attorneys general say the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that lays out steps, including notification of the public and comment periods, required to make new rules.
The Trump administration did not adequately assess the impact of the rule, or how to mitigate its effects, the suit claims.
Plus, the states argue that the rule defies longstanding policy and the original intent of the work requirement law by eliminating the states’ ability to decide whether childless adults must work given local labor markets conditions.
“The Rule unequivocally runs afoul of Congress’s intent to ensure food security for low-income individuals and to permit States, who have a better understanding of their labor markets and economic conditions, to apply for waivers and use exemptions where local or individual circumstances warrant relief,” the lawsuit said. WHAT’S NEXT? » All eyes will be on the courts. What are the odds that the states’ lawsuit pauses the food stamp cuts? Hard to say, but it’s been done before.
In October, the Trump administration’s “public charge” rule was halted just days before it would have gone into effect after California and other states sued on similar grounds. That rule, which is still winding its way through the courts, would make it harder for legal immigrants to get green cards if they use, or are deemed likely to use, public assistance.