A federal judge has permanently blocked a federal attempt to narrow food-assistance eligibility for some lawful permanent residents and to penalize Minnesota for missing a retroactive implementation deadline. The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon’s September 18 order granted summary judgment to a multistate coalition that included Minnesota, resolving the core claims in the states’ favor.
The ruling matters immediately for Minnesota’s administration of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. According to the Minnesota attorney general’s account of the decision, lawful permanent residents who previously entered the United States as refugees, asylees or through other qualifying humanitarian pathways remain eligible under the rules that apply to those groups. The court also barred federal officials from imposing penalties tied to a deadline that the states argued had effectively expired before the final guidance was issued.
The judge concluded that the disputed eligibility instruction lacked a basis in federal law and that the implementation deadline was unlawful and arbitrary. The order also addressed other eligibility-calculation changes in the 2025 federal budget law. Because the case was decided at summary judgment, the court ruled on the legal claims rather than merely preserving the status quo while evidence was gathered.
The dispute began after the U.S. Department of Agriculture circulated eligibility guidance on October 31, 2025, following changes enacted in the federal budget law. Minnesota and other states said the memo incorrectly treated some humanitarian immigrants as permanently ineligible even after they obtained lawful-permanent-resident status. Their November 26 complaint announcement also challenged USDA’s treatment of a 120-day grace period, arguing the agency could not start that clock before states received operative guidance.
USDA later changed its position on eligibility, confirming that former refugees and asylees who became lawful permanent residents could still qualify. The financial dispute remained. A temporary order issued in December 2025 had already stopped federal officials from assessing the threatened penalties while the case proceeded. Friday’s decision replaces that temporary protection with a final ruling on the challenged guidance and deadline, subject to any appeal.
For households, the decision does not create automatic eligibility or eliminate ordinary SNAP requirements. Applicants must still satisfy income, household and program rules, and individual immigration circumstances can differ. Its practical effect is narrower but significant: Minnesota does not have to apply the disputed categorical exclusion to lawful permanent residents who previously held specified humanitarian statuses, and the state is protected from the challenged retroactive penalties.
For state administrators, the ruling removes a choice the coalition said was untenable: cut off people the states believed federal law protected, or risk large financial liabilities for continuing benefits. Attorney General Keith Ellison joined the case with attorneys general from 20 other states and the District of Columbia; Oregon and New York led the coalition. Minnesotans seeking food assistance should continue using the state’s normal application and renewal channels while agencies implement the judgment.
