Monica Navarro Pimentel v Susan Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096

Pimentel represents a class of legal immigrants in Washington challenging the termination of the state-funded Food Assistance Program for Legal Immigrants (FAP).
DSHS ended FAP in Feb. 2011 due to budget cuts, while federal SNAP benefits remained available to eligible non-citizens and citizens.
DSHS administers both SNAP and FAP under a unified Basic Food framework, but FAP and SNAP are distinct programs funded by different sovereignties.
Pimentel, a qualified alien and VAWA petitioner, previously received FAP benefits and later adjusted eligibility for federal benefits.
The district court issued a TRO and preliminary injunction enjoining FAP termination and requiring individualized notices for certain class members; the state appealed.
The Ninth Circuit reversed, vacated the injunction, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination of FAP violated equal protection.	Pimentel—Pimentel	Dreyfus—DSHS	No equal protection violation; no similarly situated individuals shown.
Whether termination violated due process on notice grounds.	Pimentel lacked adequate notice	DSHS followed procedural norms; FAP is no longer a property interest	No due process violation; no protectable property interest in FAP after repeal.
Standing and procedural posture of class claims.	Class benefits were imperiled; standing premised on Pimentel	Plaintiff lacks standing for SN A due process claims; class inherits standing	Pimentel and class lacked standing for merits; injunction voided and remanded.

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (four-part preliminary injunction standard and public-interest balance in Winter framework)
Guzman v. Shewry, 552 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2009) (sliding-scale approach to injunctions; fair chance of merit needed)
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (U.S. 2005) (entitlements defined by state law; not constitutionally guaranteed)