A federal judge permanently blocked the Trump administration from penalizing states over SNAP administration and struck down guidance restricting food assistance for certain lawful permanent residents. The release does not state the date of the court’s ruling, so the event date uses the publication date as a proxy.
The court permanently blocked the administration from imposing penalties under the challenged deadline and invalidated guidance that restricted SNAP eligibility for certain lawful permanent residents.
This action does not concern privacy or identify a privacy-related contract issue. If the company contracts with vendors to administer public benefits, review vendor agreements for SNAP eligibility determination responsibilities, accurate implementation of eligibility guidance, change-in-law notification and transition duties, allocation of penalties, and audit or reporting obligations; the release provides no basis for changes to general privacy, data-processing, or breach-notification clauses.
Entity
Trump Administration
Industry
Other"Trump administration"
"the judge sided with Virginia and the coalition on every claim, striking down both the administration's fine-triggering deadline and its guidance restricting food assistance for lawful permanent residents."
"permanently blocked the Trump administration from penalizing states, including Virginia, with steep fines tied to their administration of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)."
"Oregon and New York co-led the 22-state coalition that brought the case."
"Published on: September 23, 2026"
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison joined a coalition of 20 attorneys general in suing the Trump administration over new federal contract terms intended to purge DEI. The lawsuit alleges the agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide public notice or accept comments, exceeding legal authority, and imposing vague requirements that threaten severe penalties on contractors.
A coalition of 24 states led by Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones won a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, invalidating illegal tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the tariffs were unauthorized by law, as a trade deficit does not constitute the required 'large and serious balance-of-payment deficits' under the statute. The ruling prevents the administration from enforcing the 10% worldwide tariffs on most products.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The U.S. Court of International Trade granted summary judgment to the states, ruling the tariffs illegal as they did not meet the statutory requirement of “large and serious balance-of-payment deficits.” The court invalidated the 10 percent tariffs on most global products, barring their enforcement.
Health enforcement action: Attorney General Rayfield led a coalition of 22 states and D.C. to secure a federal court order blocking the Trump Administration from threatening to cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding to healthcare providers that offer gender-affirming care to youth with gender dysphoria. The court ruled the administration's actions unlawful, protecting access to care and upholding the right to make personal healthcare decisions.
Consumer protection enforcement action where Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led a coalition of 24 states in filing a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the Trump Administration's imposition of tariffs on imported goods. The states argue the tariffs are unlawful under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, as they cause financial harm to consumers and state governments by increasing prices and procurement costs.
Consumer protection lawsuit led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, on behalf of a coalition of 24 states and two governors, challenging the Trump Administration's imposition of worldwide tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The suit alleges the administration is acting without legal authority, violating the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional separation of powers, and causing immediate financial harm to American consumers and businesses through increased prices.