With COVID-19 leading to many people being self-quarantined or laid off work, and workers who are self-employed or contracted to losing wages, there’s been a rising outcry against the Trump Administration’s refusal to turn away from the SNAP rule change that would force nearly 700,000 Americans off the food stamp program. The rule change, which Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue refused to set aside earlier this week, would have required “able-bodied” adults without children to work no less than 20 hours a week in order to qualify for SNAP benefits beyond 3 months. It also would have limited states’ ability to waive that requirement due to economic conditions.
SNAP limits its beneficiaries to three months of benefits, unless they’re working or in a training program for 20 hours per week. The new rule exempts children and their custodial parents, disabled Americans, and those over 50 from the work requirement. But while states could waive those limits if their unemployment rate was 20% above the national rate (which is currently 4.2%), the rule change would have increased it to 6%. Some states would find it harder to qualify for the waiver and expand SNAP — especially as of November 2019, only one state had an unemployment rate over 6%, and that was Alaska.
Last night, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell took action:
A federal judge has issued an injunction blocking the Trump administration from adopting a rule change that would force nearly 700,000 Americans off food stamps, officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The rule change was set to take effect April 1.
In a ruling issued Friday evening in Washington, D.C., U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell called the rule change capricious, arbitrary and likely unlawful.
The rule change would have required able-bodied adults without children to work at least 20 hours a week in order to qualify for SNAP benefits past three months. It would also have limited states' usual ability to waive those requirements depending on economic conditions. The preliminary injunction will preserve that flexibility.
It’s been noted by those advocating against the rule change (Senator Debbie Stabenow, D-MI, and James D. Weill, president of the nonprofit Food Research & Action Center, among others) that this rule would harm many Americans:
1) It would remove the ability of many to buy groceries at need, which would hurt grocery stores, farmers, and many small communities as they lose the SNAP dollars;
2) Parents without primary custody of their children, young adolescents aged out of foster care, and some low-income college students could be included as “able-bodied adults without dependents,” leading to an inability to keep themselves fed;
3) By taking SNAP away from a large class of people, the Department of Agriculture would actually be contributing to a rise in health issues and unemployment as these people are forced to deal with the outcome of food insecurity (i.e., malnutrition and starvation).
These states are suing to block the SNAP rule change, including New York City and the District of Columbia, are: California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia.
Howell cited the concerns raised by the spread of coronavirus in the U.S.:
"Especially now, as a global pandemic poses widespread health risks, guaranteeing that government officials at both the federal and state levels have flexibility to address the nutritional needs of residents and ensure their well-being through programs like SNAP, is essential," [Judge Howell] wrote.
There are still two other proposed changes that could throw millions of Americans off SNAP. But one down, two more to go.