444 F.Supp.3d 1
D.D.C.2020Background
- USDA issued a Final Rule tightening SNAP work-waiver rules for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs): (1) narrowed criteria for waivers based on lack of sufficient jobs and redefined waiver "area" to Labor Market Areas (LMAs) (effective Apr. 1, 2020), and (2) limited carryover of discretionary exemptions to one prior year (effective Oct. 1, 2020).
- Plaintiffs: 19 states, D.C., New York City and three private plaintiffs (Bread for the City and two individuals) challenged the Rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and moved for preliminary injunction/stay.
- Key legal question: whether USDA's changes are arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, or procedurally deficient under the APA.
- District Court split the Rule: denied preliminary relief as to the discretionary-exemption (carryover) change; granted a nationwide preliminary injunction and §705 stay as to the waiver-related provisions (criteria and area definition), finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on arbitrary-and-capricious grounds.
- Court emphasized irreparable harms to states (administrative costs, need to scale E&T programs, notice/hearing burdens), to organizations (diversion of resources), and to individuals (loss of nutrition for nearly 700,000 SNAP recipients), and held nationwide relief appropriate to prevent chaotic, partial implementation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of limiting carryover of discretionary exemptions | USDA’s one-year carryover limit contradicts statutory carryover practice and legislative history; agency failed to account for reliance interests | Statute is ambiguous on multi-year carryover; USDA’s interpretation is reasonable and supported by policy concerns and OIG findings | Denied preliminary relief to plaintiffs on this claim — USDA likely acted within statutory ambiguity and provided adequate reasoned explanation |
| Narrowed waiver criteria (reliance on unemployment rates and 6% floor) | Rule unlawfully substitutes general unemployment rates for measures tied to ABAWDs; agency ignored voluminous evidence showing ABAWD-specific barriers; decision arbitrary and capricious | Unemployment rates are reliable, administrable federal metrics; agency has discretion to set standards and prevent waiver misuse | Plaintiffs likely to succeed on APA arbitrary-and-capricious claim; court preliminarily enjoined waiver criteria changes |
| Redefinition of waiver "area" to LMAs (prohibiting state-defined groupings) | LMAs poorly reflect ABAWD commuting/job access, especially in urban areas; USDA offered no factual record that states ‘gerrymander’ waivers; change arbitrary and inadequately justified | USDA relied on operational experience that states group sub-areas to maximize waived areas; LMAs are uniform, federally-defined and administrable | Plaintiffs likely to succeed on arbitrary-and-capricious claim; court preliminarily enjoined LMA-only area definition |
| Scope of relief (nationwide injunction vs. limited to plaintiffs) | Nationwide injunction appropriate because vacatur of an unlawful rule is the ordinary remedy under the APA, and partial enforcement would cause confusion and unequal treatment | Relief should be limited to plaintiffs; nationwide injunction exceeds Article III and equitable limits; record may not show nationwide harms | Court granted a nationwide injunction and §705 stay as to waiver-related provisions, relying on D.C. Circuit precedent and equitable considerations to provide complete relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor preliminary-injunction standard)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (two-step test for agency statutory interpretation)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious review requires reasoned explanation and consideration of the record)
- Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117 (2016) (agencies may change policy but must provide reasoned explanation, including addressing reliance interests)
- Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 145 F.3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (vacatur of unlawful agency rules is the ordinary remedy)
- Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011) (relationship between Chevron step two and arbitrary-and-capricious review)