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.
So on March 23, James and a coalition of 21 attorneys general (New York plus 20 others, including California, Massachusetts, Illinois and Wisconsin) sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Their argument was that the conditions are unconstitutionally vague, exceed USDA’s legal authority, skipped the rulemaking procedures the law requires, and amount to unlawful coercion of states. Across all the states in the suit, the funding at stake adds up to roughly $74 billion for SNAP, school nutrition and related programs.
The administration does not see it as hostage-taking. Government attorneys argued in court that the new requirements “would help promote the sound stewardship of taxpayer dollars, strengthen USDA’s control and oversight,” per Newsweek. A Justice Department spokesperson framed the fight bluntly to the Daily Signal: “This administration prioritizes merit over DEI, acknowledges biological reality, and puts American citizens first. Frivolous lawsuits will not deter this Department of Justice from fighting for common sense.” USDA itself declined to comment on pending litigation.
SNAP feeds roughly 38 million Americans nationally, and in New York about 2.96 million people, or 14.8 percent of the state, received benefits in fiscal year 2025. The conditions also reached WIC, the school lunch program, and TEFAP, the emergency food program that keeps food pantries stocked. These are not line items most people think about until the EBT card stops working at the register.
James cast the win as part of a pattern. “For the sixth time, a federal court has stopped this administration from holding our federal funding hostage to force states into submission,” she said in a statement, adding that “these unlawful conditions would have threatened food for families and critical support for farmers across New York.” When she first filed in March, she put it more plainly: “The federal government cannot hold critical funding hostage to force states to comply with vague, ideological directives.”
For Brooklyn, the timing matters, because the food-aid rolls were already shrinking before this reached a courtroom. From January 2025 to February 2026, New York State’s SNAP enrollment fell 6.2 percent, more than 180,000 people, and New York City’s dropped 5.5 percent, more than 100,000, according to City Limits. In Brooklyn alone, about 30,384 people came off the rolls, a 5 percent decline, the steepest drop in raw numbers of any borough. City Limits reported the causes as new federal work requirements and a chilling effect from immigration enforcement, with one advocate describing “fewer application appointments and increased cancellations, partly driven by applicants’ fears of leaving their homes due to ICE activity.” A condition tying food money to immigration certification would have landed on top of all that.
The injunction is temporary. Judge Joun’s written memorandum is still coming, the underlying lawsuit continues, and the administration can appeal. If you rely on SNAP, WIC or free school meals in Bushwick, Williamsburg or Bed-Stuy, the order means the certification requirement cannot be enforced against New York while the case proceeds, so your benefits are not conditioned on the state signing the pledge right now. You can read the attorney general’s filing and follow the case on the New York Attorney General’s office page, and if your household’s benefits have already lapsed or you need to apply, the state’s official myBenefits portal is where to check eligibility and start an application.
Featured image: USDA / Public domain via Wikimedia Commons
