Federal courts have twice blocked the U.S. Department of Agriculture from carrying out its 2025 demand that states hand over personal records of everyone who applied for or received food stamps since January 2020. The USDA SNAP data sharing lawsuit is actually two lawsuits — one brought by SNAP recipients and privacy groups, one brought by 22 state attorneys general — and as of early 2026 both are active, with the USDA under a preliminary injunction that also bars the agency from withholding administrative funding from states that refuse to comply.
What the USDA Asked For
On May 6, 2025, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins sent a letter to all 50 states directing them to turn over “all records associated with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits and allotments.”1USDA. Secretary Rollins Requires States Provide Records of SNAP Benefits The fields sought included names, dates of birth, home addresses, Social Security numbers, citizenship status, and household member information for every applicant and recipient since January 2020.2NPR. USDA SNAP DOGE Data Immigration
The USDA said the goal was program integrity: verifying eligibility and rooting out fraud. The letter cited a March 20, 2025, executive order directing federal agencies to secure “unfettered access to comprehensive data from all state programs that receive federal funding.”1USDA. Secretary Rollins Requires States Provide Records of SNAP Benefits For more than 60 years, the federal-state SNAP partnership had relied on anonymized or limited datasets for oversight. This was the first time the USDA had asked for sweeping, individually identifiable records covering years of participation history.3Food Research & Action Center. A Deliberate Policy Design for SNAP Decline
Why the Demand Alarmed Privacy Advocates
The data request arrived while the Department of Government Efficiency was collecting personal records from the Social Security Administration, the IRS, and the Department of Homeland Security. Reports indicated DOGE was working to build a consolidated database that could support immigration enforcement. The USDA and DOGE jointly contacted Fidelity Information Services, a private company that processes SNAP transactions in many states, about obtaining the data.2NPR. USDA SNAP DOGE Data Immigration
Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for SNAP, but they often live in households with U.S. citizens and other eligible family members, so the requested data would sweep in their addresses and household details as well.4Electronic Frontier Foundation. Federal Government Demands Data on SNAP, Says Nothing About Protecting It5Senator Schiff Press Release. Sen. Schiff Raises Concern of Privacy Law Violations6USDA FNS. SNAP Federal Register Notice
The Two Lawsuits
Pallek v. Rollins
On May 22, 2025, a coalition of SNAP recipients, hunger organizations, and privacy groups filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Organizational plaintiffs included MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, with counsel from Protect Democracy, the National Student Legal Defense Network, and the National Center for Law and Economic Justice.7National Center for Law and Economic Justice. USDA Sued for Illegally Demanding Personal Information of Millions of SNAP Beneficiaries
The complaint alleged violations of the Privacy Act of 1974, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the E-Government Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs argued the agency failed to publish the required System of Records Notice, did not conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment, and did not provide the mandatory Information Collection Review documentation before demanding personal data at this scale.8EPIC. Pallek v. Rollins
The plaintiffs briefly withdrew their first motion for a temporary restraining order on June 2, 2025, after the USDA told the court it had voluntarily paused collection.9NPR. SNAP USDA Data Lawsuit Privacy When the USDA renewed its demands in July, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a second emergency motion, challenging a data collection date set for July 24, one day after the public comment deadline closed.10EPIC. Plaintiffs Move for TRO to Stop USDA Consolidation of SNAP Recipient Data The case remains active before Judge Jia M. Cobb.11CourtListener. Pallek v. Rollins Docket
California v. USDA
On July 28, 2025, a coalition of 22 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. California led, joined by Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin, along with D.C. Pennsylvania’s governor joined via an amended complaint in September 2025.12Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. State of California v. United States Department of Agriculture
The states’ central statutory argument was that the Food and Nutrition Act does not require states to hand over the requested data. They contended that 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(8)(A), which says safeguards “shall permit” certain disclosures, gives states the option to share data but does not compel it. The USDA argued the opposite reading. The states also raised APA claims, arguing the agency had not established agreed-upon data and security protocols.13California Office of the Attorney General. Order Granting Preliminary Injunction
The Court Orders Blocking Collection
After the USDA threatened to cut SNAP administrative funding to noncompliant states, Senior U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney granted a temporary restraining order on September 18, 2025, preventing the USDA from withholding funding or collecting the demanded data. She found the states likely to show that the SNAP Act prohibited them from disclosing the requested information and that the USDA’s intended use of the data went “well beyond those permitted” by law.14Courthouse News. Judge Blocks Feds From Tying Funding to Food Stamp Data
The order covered 21 of the 22 plaintiff states plus D.C. Nevada was excluded because the court found “undisputed evidence” it had already “fully complied” and transmitted its SNAP data.13California Office of the Attorney General. Order Granting Preliminary Injunction
On October 15, 2025, Judge Chesney converted the TRO into a preliminary injunction, again finding the USDA had not shown adequate safeguards to protect the information from unauthorized access or misuse.15Washington Attorney General. AGs Secure Order Halting Trump’s Push to Use SNAP Data for Mass Surveillance16StateScoop. Judge Blocks USDA Collection of SNAP Data in 21 States
In November 2025 the administration issued a renewed demand accompanied by a proposed data and security protocol, and again threatened to withhold administrative funding. California Attorney General Rob Bonta moved on January 9, 2026, to enforce the existing injunction.17California Office of the Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Asks Court to Enforce Order Blocking Trump Administration’s Demand
On February 13, 2026, Judge Chesney tentatively ruled to block the funding threat, finding the preliminary injunction remained in force and the proposed protocol was not ready for implementation.18Courthouse News. Judge to Enforce Pause on Feds Withholding Funds Over SNAP Data By February 27, 2026, the court issued a second formal order barring the administration from cutting off SNAP funding and finding the USDA’s proposed data and security protocol “unlawful” because it would permit sharing SNAP data with entities unrelated to federal benefits administration.19Massachusetts Attorney General. AG Campbell Secures Second Order Blocking Trump Administration From Cutting Off SNAP Funding
The Computer Matching Dispute
By early 2026 the litigation had increasingly focused on whether the USDA’s proposed database is a “computer matching program” under the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act. EPIC argued the SNAP Information Database met the statutory definition because it involved comparing federal records with state records to verify beneficiary eligibility. Under that law, such programs require the USDA to enter into formal Computer Matching Agreements with each of the 53 participating state agencies. The USDA had not executed those agreements.20EPIC. Comments of EPIC to the USDA on System of Records Notice for the SNAP Information Database
What This Means for SNAP Recipients
SNAP benefits themselves remain fully funded through September 2026, according to the California Attorney General’s office, even as the fight over administrative funding and data protocols continues.17California Office of the Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Asks Court to Enforce Order Blocking Trump Administration’s Demand For most recipients in the plaintiff states, no personal data has been transferred to the USDA under the May 2025 demand. Nevada is the exception the court identified.
Advocates have reported a chilling effect on participation. Mixed-status families — households with both citizens and noncitizens — have reportedly pulled away from the program out of fear that personal information would be shared with immigration enforcement. The USDA itself acknowledged in an August 2025 document that misuse of SNAP data could “erode trust and depress participation.”21Food Research & Action Center. USDA Escalates SNAP Data Demands SNAP participation fell from roughly 42 million in July 2025 to about 39.5 million in December 2025, though much of that drop is attributable to work requirements in a separate reconciliation law rather than to the data dispute alone.3Food Research & Action Center. A Deliberate Policy Design for SNAP Decline A similar pattern followed public charge rule changes during the first Trump administration, when SNAP participation among low-income noncitizens dropped 37 percent between 2016 and 2019, according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of Census data.22Migration Policy Institute. Anticipated Chilling Effects of Public Charge Rule Are Real
Both lawsuits remain active. The California case has produced the most consequential rulings so far, and its preliminary injunction and enforcement orders continue to keep the USDA’s data collection blocked while the courts work through the underlying legal questions.