Judge blocks USDA data collection on SNAP applicants in 21 states and DC
Temporary restraining order halts data gathering as courts review the legality and scope of the bid to share information across agencies.
A federal judge in California on Thursday temporarily barred the U.S. Department of Agriculture from collecting personal information about residents enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in 21 states and Washington, D.C., pending a hearing next month.
U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney issued the temporary restraining order, finding the states were likely to succeed in arguing that the data can be used only to administer or enforce the program and generally cannot be shared with other entities.
Chesney noted that the USDA had signaled plans to share the data with other agencies and use it for purposes not allowed by the SNAP Act, a factor the judge said supported grant of the injunction for now.
SNAP serves more than 42 million people nationwide. Under the program, the federal government pays all food benefits while states determine eligibility and issue benefits to enrollees.
The ruling comes amid a broader push by the current administration to increase data sharing across federal programs as a means to root out waste, fraud and abuse. A March executive order directed agencies to ensure unfettered access to comprehensive data from state programs, a step supporters say is intended to streamline enforcement and reduce fraud. The order is separate from the SNAP case but has framed the broader debate over data use across government.
In July, the USDA warned states that failure to turn over information about people enrolled in SNAP could jeopardize funding for the program, a signal that helped spur the legal challenge from the coalition of states.
The case is at least the second lawsuit challenging the USDA's attempt to collect SNAP data. Privacy and hunger relief groups, along with some beneficiaries, filed a separate suit in Washington, D.C., in May, but the federal judge there declined to issue a preliminary injunction to halt data collection. Some states have already turned over at least portions of the requested information while others have resisted.
Next month, a hearing is scheduled to determine whether the temporary restraining order should be converted into a longer term prohibition while the merits of the case are resolved.