On December 27, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted a preliminary injunction that protects Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for approximately 450,000 Minnesotans. This ruling responds to a request from Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and halts a demand from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) requiring the state to conduct in-person interviews for roughly 100,000 SNAP households to verify their eligibility.
The court’s decision blocks the USDA’s directive issued on December 16, 2023, which mandated that Minnesota complete these interviews within a 30-day timeframe. This demand was met with immediate legal action when Ellison filed a lawsuit against the USDA on December 23, 2023. He argued that the USDA’s request was unfeasible and violated federal law, as the USDA was not authorized to make such demands.
At a hearing on December 27, USDA officials presented a letter to the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office indicating they had already cut administrative funding for SNAP in Minnesota. The court’s injunction also prevented this funding cut from taking effect, ensuring that the state can continue administering SNAP benefits.
Ellison expressed his relief and determination following the ruling, stating, “We have won yet another battle in the Trump Administration’s war on Minnesota. Before any of us in the state are Republicans or Democrats, we are Minnesotans, and it should shock and disgust us that this president is trying to take food off the table of half a million of our neighbors.” He pledged to continue fighting against actions that threaten the welfare of Minnesota residents.
Currently, approximately 440,000 people in Minnesota rely on SNAP benefits each month. This includes around 180,000 children, 70,000 seniors, and 50,000 adults with disabilities. The court’s ruling is expected to alleviate concerns among these vulnerable populations, allowing them to maintain access to essential food resources.
The situation underscores the ongoing tension between state officials and federal agencies over the administration of social welfare programs. With this ruling, Minnesota has temporarily secured vital support for its residents, highlighting the importance of state-level advocacy in protecting public assistance programs.
