State Attorney General Dana Nessel has launched a pair of legal challenges in recent weeks aimed at protecting vulnerable residents from abrupt federal policy changes. Most recently, Nessel joined 21 other attorneys general in suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over new Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) guidance that she argues unlawfully restricts benefits for thousands of lawful permanent residents. The USDA memo directs states to treat refugees, asylees, humanitarian parolees, and other legally admitted immigrants as permanently ineligible for SNAP, despite federal law explicitly allowing these groups to qualify once standard requirements are met. Nessel warns the guidance would create widespread confusion, risk wrongful terminations, and expose states to major financial penalties due to the USDA’s misapplication of its own rules.
The lawsuit also highlights a procedural issue: USDA claims that states’ 120-day compliance window expired the day after the guidance was released, leaving agencies without enough time to adjust eligibility systems. According to the coalition, this interpretation is impossible under the agency’s own regulations and forces states into an untenable choice to violate federal statute or absorb significant administrative liability. The attorneys general are asking the court to block implementation of the memo to ensure families do not lose critical food assistance because of what they view as unlawful and rushed federal policymaking.
Just a week earlier, Nessel joined another multistate lawsuit, this time targeting the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The challenge centers on sweeping changes to the Continuum of Care (CoC) program, including sharp reductions in allowable spending on permanent housing, new gender-based service limitations, and penalties tied to local homelessness policies. States argue that HUD’s decision to cut traditional funding levels from 90% down to 30% and impose new conditions on housing providers undermines long-standing federal policy, including the widely adopted Housing First model. Nessel and her counterparts contend that HUD enacted these changes without congressional authorization or adequate explanation, and warn the shifts could destabilize housing providers, create uncertainty in local markets, and leave thousands of the most vulnerable at risk of losing long-term housing.
