Consumer protection and civil rights lawsuit filed by Oregon AG and 20 other states against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over unlawful funding conditions that coerce states into complying with policies unrelated to nutrition programs. The conditions relate to immigration, DEI, and gender identity, and are alleged to violate the Spending Clause and Administrative Procedure Act. The suit seeks to block these conditions to protect billions in funding for programs like SNAP, WIC, and school lunches that serve vulnerable populations.
The lawsuit seeks a court order prohibiting USDA from implementing or enforcing the illegal funding conditions on states.
In-house legal teams should review all agreements involving U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding, including grants, cooperative agreements, mutual interest agreements, and subawards with state agencies or local entities. Key clauses to examine are compliance with federal laws and policies, funding conditions, termination for noncompliance, certifications and representations, and flow-down provisions. Given the lawsuit's focus on coercive and unrelated conditions (immigration, DEI, gender identity), teams should assess whether existing clauses require adherence to such policies and consider amendments to limit compliance to nutrition program purposes, challenge unconstitutional conditions, and protect against termination or funding withholding.
Entity
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Industry
OtherOfficial Press Release
https://www.doj.state.or.us/media-home/news-media-releases/ag-rayfield-files-lawsuit-to-protect-usda-programs/
20260323 Massachusetts et al v US Dept of Agric et al Compl
https://www.doj.state.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/20260323-Massachusetts-et-al-v-US-Dept-of-Agric-et-al-Compl-filed.pdf
Oregon Attorney General Enforcement Page
https://www.doj.state.or.us/consumer-protection/
"U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)"
"Spending Clause"
"Administrative Procedure Act (APA)"
"vague and expansive funding conditions relating to immigration, diversity, equity and inclusion, and gender identity"
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell secured a preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court blocking the Trump Administration's USDA from cutting off SNAP funding to states that refuse to turn over personal data of SNAP applicants and recipients. The court found USDA's proposed data protocol unlawful because it allowed sharing data with entities unrelated to federal benefits administration.
Attorney General Raoul secured a court order preventing the U.S. Department of Agriculture from collecting SNAP applicants' and recipients' personal data without an agreed-upon protocol that restricts sharing with unrelated entities like the Department of Homeland Security. The court found that the USDA's proposed protocol would violate federal law by allowing data use for immigration enforcement, contrary to the intended purpose of SNAP.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta secured a second preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California blocking the Trump Administration's demand that states turn over personal data of SNAP applicants and recipients. The court found the USDA's proposed data protocol would allow sharing of state data with entities unrelated to federal benefits administration, violating federal law.
Consumer protection case where Oregon AG Dan Rayfield led a multi-state lawsuit to block USDA guidance that unlawfully restricts SNAP eligibility for legal immigrants, arguing it contradicts federal law and could cause wrongful benefit terminations.
Attorney General William Tong is seeking a preliminary injunction to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture from forcing states to share private data of SNAP participants, including social security numbers and shopping history. USDA is threatening to cut off administrative funding if states do not comply, which AG Tong argues violates federal privacy laws and the Constitution.
Attorney General William Tong, leading a coalition of 22 states, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for demanding that states disclose sensitive personal data of SNAP recipients. The demand violates federal privacy laws and the Constitution, and threatens to withhold critical funding. The lawsuit seeks to block USDA from conditioning SNAP administrative funds on data disclosure.