What legal challenges have been filed against the 2025 SNAP eligibility changes for noncitizens and what courts have ruled so far?

1. Lawsuits Multiply as States and Coalitions Move to Protect Benefits

Several coordinated lawsuits allege the administration unlawfully withheld SNAP contingency funds and improperly suspended benefit payments, with 25 states plus D.C. and additional coalitions seeking injunctive relief to restore funding streams and prevent disruptions to millions of recipients. These complaints assert violations of federal statutes and the Administrative Procedure Act and seek temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions to force the USDA to tap $6 billion in contingency funds; the plaintiffs assert the agency is selectively choosing which programs to keep active during funding interruptions ^{[1] [2] [4]}. The actions are framed as urgent because the plaintiffs say tens of millions depend on SNAP for food security and that the suspension disproportionately harms vulnerable populations.

2. District Courts Are the First Battleground — Rulings Vary by Venue

Litigation began in federal district courts across several jurisdictions, including a suit filed in Rhode Island and coordinated filings in Massachusetts, where states argue the USDA’s actions were arbitrary and capricious. These district-level complaints seek immediate relief compelling the government to continue SNAP disbursements using contingency funds; outcomes vary depending on judicial interpretation of agency authority during funding shortfalls and the scope of statutory directives from Congress ^{[4] [1]}. The district courts’ preliminary rulings and emergency motions have set the stage for rapid appeals, contributing to legal uncertainty for states and recipients awaiting payment decisions.

3. The Supreme Court Intervened Temporarily — Emergency Order Pauses Full Payments

An emergency order from the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked full SNAP food-aid payments for November, citing ongoing appeals after lower-court activity. The order pauses distributions nationwide until 48 hours after an appeals court issues a ruling, or further Supreme Court action, and has immediate practical effects because several states had already issued full payments while others held back pending guidance. The administration framed this as defending executive discretion, while plaintiffs said the pause jeopardizes millions of households’ food security as litigation proceeds ^{[3] [5] [6]}.

4. Impact on Noncitizen Eligibility Litigation Is Indirect but Significant

Although some reporting and filings focus broadly on suspensions of SNAP funding and contingency-use disputes, advocacy groups and refugee-service organizations specifically highlight the 2025 noncitizen eligibility rule changes as driving litigation and administrative confusion. Many sources note that guidance from federal agencies was unclear, prompting states to either over-restrict access for refugees and asylees or to seek judicial clarity; estimates cited predict tens of thousands of noncitizens could lose benefits under the new rules, which fuels the legal urgency and grounds for challenge even when suits are framed around funding rather than the merits of eligibility criteria themselves ^{[7] [8] [9]}. Plaintiffs argue that the combination of new regulatory criteria and funding maneuvers produces unlawful harm to protected classes.

5. What Comes Next: Appeals, Federal Guidance, and Political Stakes

The immediate legal trajectory points to rapid appeals from district-court decisions and potential further Supreme Court involvement; the emergency stay on full payments will remain until appellate courts or the Supreme Court acts, leaving states and recipients in limbo. Plaintiffs are pushing for mandatory use of contingency funds and clear federal guidance to prevent states from imposing more restrictive interpretations of noncitizen eligibility, while the administration defends its policy and discretion in resource allocation. The litigation mixes statutory interpretation, administrative law standards, and constitutional claims, and its resolution will shape not only benefit flows for November but also precedent on federal agency funding choices and the legal pathways states can use to defend residents’ access to federal food aid ^{[2] [3] [7]}.