This week, a federal court determined that lawful permanent residents are eligible to receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Back in July, the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) Act was passed by Congress, introducing amendments to several provisions related to SNAP eligibility. However, amidst the government shutdown, the Trump administration released guidelines that interpreted this new legislation in a way that significantly restricted noncitizen access to SNAP benefits.

In response, a group of states led by New York filed a lawsuit in late November, challenging the proposed restrictions on the country’s leading food assistance program. The lawsuit contended that the guidance misinterpreted federal law.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai, appointed by President Joe Biden, issued an order preventing the government from implementing the proposed SNAP eligibility changes for permanent residents.

The court’s decision for a preliminary injunction was summarized in a docket entry, which stated, “For the reasons explained at length on the record, the Court concludes that a preliminary injunction is appropriate.”

In ruling against the government, the court preliminarily accepted several of the plaintiffs’ legal arguments — explicitly listing the factors courts are to rely upon when issuing such injunctive relief.

“Plaintiffs, seeking a preliminary injunction against the federal government, must show that (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; and (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor and an injunction is in the public interest,” the docket entry continues. “The Court finds that the unrebutted evidence Plaintiffs submitted is credible and compelling. The evidence persuasively establishes that all elements of a preliminary injunction are met.”

The court goes on to note that it “adopts the arguments” submitted by the plaintiff states in a 32-page reply motion late last week.

Notably, on the foremost issue in the litigation — reconfiguring SNAP eligibility for permanent residents — the government conceded after being hauled into court, the motion explains.

“This is a case about the chaos caused by ill-considered and illegal federal agency action that purported to unlawfully eliminate many thousands of immigrants from crucial subsistence benefits,” the reply motion reads. “Plaintiffs sued and Defendants backpedaled, conceding Plaintiffs’ view of the law is correct and implausibly claiming that they ‘have always held’ that view.”

In a 33-page opposition motion filed the day before, the U.S. Department of Justice wrote: “Defendants share Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the applicable statutes. Indeed, to the extent there is any doubt, USDA has issued FAQs that make clear that Plaintiffs and Defendants hold—and have always held—the same view of the law.”

In other words, some two weeks after being sued, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued a “Q&A” document which address “Alien SNAP Eligibility” issues in light of one provision of the OBBB.

The upshot, both sides agree, is “there is now ‘no dispute between the parties over…who is eligible for SNAP benefits and when,’” the plaintiffs’ reply motion reads, citing the DOJ’s opposition motion.

Still, there is what the plaintiffs call “a crystalized dispute between the Parties over when Defendants may penalize Plaintiff States for any payment errors stemming from the legal changes that were revised via new guidance.”

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs identified a newly-proposed system to identify and account for errors envisioned by the guidance.

That new system, the plaintiffs insist, “would saddle states with catastrophic financial penalties unless they immediately implement the unlawful restrictions,” according to a press release issued by New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office.

Under the OBBB, states have 120 days to process new guidance and root out violations, according to the lawsuit. Still, the Trump administration is trying to implement the guidance with only one day of leeway for any such violations, the lawsuit explains.

And, on that matter, the suing states and DOJ are still at loggerheads.

“Although the Q&A concedes Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding non-citizen eligibility, nothing in the Q&A modifies the Guidance’s directive that the ‘exclusionary period end date [was] November 1, 2025,’” the plaintiffs’ motion reads. “The Q&A does not even mention the exclusionary period.”

The heart of the remaining dispute is the timeline for when states must begin compliance with a series of other SNAP changes; the government believes that day came and went on Nov. 1, 2025; the states believe the clock is still running until April 9, 2026.

The court, for its part, sided with the states.

In the docket entry, the judge said the injunction also “orders that the exclusionary period is extended until April 9, 2026.”