For roughly $9.7 billion a year, the federal government wanted New York to sign something first: a pledge that the state would not spend a dime to “promote gender ideology,” would keep benefits away from undocumented immigrants, and would fall in line on “fair athletic opportunities for girls and women.” That is the money that buys groceries for about 2.96 million New Yorkers on SNAP, stocks the WIC counters, and pays for free school lunch. On June 5, a federal judge in Boston said no, the administration cannot make food money hostage to a loyalty oath.

The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, who granted a preliminary injunction sought by New York Attorney General Letitia James and 20 other attorneys general. A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order that freezes a challenged policy while the lawsuit plays out. It does not end the case. It just stops the U.S. Department of Agriculture from enforcing the conditions in the meantime. Joun, who sits on the federal bench in Boston, said he would issue a written memorandum later explaining his reasoning.

On December 31, 2025, USDA quietly made new “general terms and conditions” effective for every state that wanted federal food and farm dollars, per the coalition’s court filing. Before the money flowed, states had to certify compliance with a list of federal policies on “gender ideology,” immigration, and women’s sports. The catch the attorneys general kept hammering: the policies were never fully spelled out. As Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office described the coalition’s argument in the lawsuit, USDA “does not fully identify or limit which policies the states must comply with, leaving states at the mercy of the administration for enforcement.” Sign first, then find out what you agreed to.