A federal judge in St. Paul signaled deep skepticism Tuesday toward the USDA’s attempt to dismiss Minnesota’s lawsuit over threatened cuts to food assistance funding, questioning whether the agency believes it can operate above the law.
The Agriculture Department asked U.S. District Judge to throw out the state’s challenge to USDA threats to freeze Minnesota’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds. Federal attorneys argued Minnesota filed suit prematurely—before any money was actually withheld—meaning there was no “final agency action” for courts to review.
“They bypassed all of this to get to the court,” USDA attorney Adline Momoh told the judge. “That demonstrates the very nature of what they’re trying to do, they’re trying to bypass the administrative review scheme.”
Judge Questions Federal Power Grab
The Biden appointee wasn’t buying it. She pressed federal lawyers on their assertion that threatening to cut off SNAP funding doesn’t count as reviewable government action—even when those threats force state officials to change policy under duress.
Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Joseph Richie argued the state had no obligation to exhaust administrative appeals before seeking court protection, especially when the USDA ignored its own noncompliance procedures by abruptly threatening the funding freeze.
“It is such an unbelievable claim to power that they could waive the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act to themselves and promulgate new rules,” Richie said.
What’s at Stake for Minnesotans
The judge cut through the procedural fog with unusual bluntness. “It strikes me in very blunt terms that Minnesota just wants the USDA to comply with the law,” she said from the bench.
SNAP provides food assistance to low-income families, with the federal government funding benefits while states administer the program. When Washington threatens to pull that funding, states face an impossible choice: capitulate to federal demands that may exceed legal authority, or risk cutting off groceries for their most vulnerable residents.
The judge’s skepticism suggests she sees the USDA’s argument for what it is—a procedural smokescreen to avoid judicial review of actions that carry very real consequences. If agencies can threaten states into compliance, then claim those threats aren’t “final” enough to challenge in court, administrative law becomes a one-way ratchet favoring federal power.
The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss. Minnesota will continue operating its SNAP program under existing rules while the case proceeds.
Key Points
- Federal judge openly questioned USDA claim that threatening to cut Minnesota’s food assistance funding isn’t reviewable in court
- Agriculture Department argued Minnesota sued too early because no money was actually withheld yet—a position the judge called an “unbelievable claim to power”
- Case tests whether federal agencies can force state compliance through funding threats while avoiding judicial oversight by calling those threats non-final
https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-judge-hesitant-to-dismiss-minnesota-suit-over-snap-funding/ – July 29, 2026
