President Donald Trump speaks during a lunch with African leaders in the State Dining Room of the White House, Wednesday, July 9, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Evan Vucci).
A federal court has issued a ruling preventing the Trump administration from terminating Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in Minnesota. This decision comes after the administration attempted to impose “entirely new conditions” on the state.
In December 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) warned Minnesota that it needed to recertify all SNAP recipients in specific counties by January 15, 2026. Failure to meet this deadline, the USDA stated, would result in the initiation of noncompliance procedures against the state.
In response, Minnesota filed a lawsuit, claiming the USDA overstepped its authority and violated constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provisions, the latter of which regulates the actions of federal agencies.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Laura M. Provinzino, appointed by President Joe Biden, issued a preliminary injunction. This ruling prevents the USDA from penalizing Minnesota due to the recertification mandate and ensures that the state’s SNAP benefits for the first quarter of 2026 remain unaffected by federal intervention.
The 50-page order highlighted that Minnesota has adhered to federal compliance in its SNAP recertification process, with USDA’s prior approval. It criticized the USDA’s sudden demands for a new process within 30 days as lacking a sound justification, illustrating the type of arbitrary decision-making the APA seeks to prevent and which a preliminary injunction is designed to address.
The court’s decision to rule against the federal government was based on several legal arguments presented by the plaintiffs. Chief among these was the assertion that the USDA’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious,” a legal standard from the APA describing agency actions that exceed their bounds without following required formal procedures.
From the ruling, at length:
Minnesota and the Recertification Counties put forth evidence that requiring them to comply with the Recertification Letter’s demands would be close to impossible, as it would require the four counties to divert nearly all available resources and expend additional resources to even come close to meeting the Recertification Letter’s deadline…
That leaves the distinct impression that the USDA has set Minnesota and the Recertification Counties up to fail, a consequence that is about as arbitrary as they come.
The court goes on to note that, under APA precedent, when a federal agency “drastically changes its own policies and practices,” it is the agency’s burden to “consider the alternatives” that are “within the ambit of the existing” policy. Such an inquiry must take into account “whether there were reliance interests, determine whether they were significant, and weigh any such interests against competing policy concerns,” the judge explained.
“The USDA did none of this,” Provinzino writes. “Instead, it pulled the rug out from under Minnesota without offering any reasoned explanation or one that considered the weight of its new demands. Minnesota is accordingly likely to prevail on its claim that the Recertification Letter (and the companion Enforcement Letter) is arbitrary and capricious.”
At this stage, while ruling on the aforementioned APA claim in the plaintiffs’ favor, the court did not consider the remaining claims.
Still, the judge took some time to opine on the nature of the Trump administration’s underlying requests – finding them legally lacking.
“The Recertification Letter violates [several statutory] mandates because the Recertification Letter requires Minnesota to end every SNAP recipient’s certification period before its ‘assigned termination date,’” the order goes on. “Terminating a SNAP recipient’s guaranteed certification period, for reasons wholly unrelated to the recipient’s eligibility or conduct, is fundamentally unfair because it defeats the recipient’s reasonable reliance on the guarantee of uninterrupted benefits during that period.”
In their 48-page complaint, the plaintiffs sketched out a similar notion.
“Defendants are threatening to withhold Minnesota’s SNAP administrative funding and to disallow its participation in SNAP altogether unless Minnesota completes the impossibly onerous tasks they have demanded,” the lawsuit reads. “This violates the constitutional limitations on the federal government’s spending power because Minnesota did not have ‘clear notice’ of this condition when it elected to participate in SNAP.”
