665 F.Supp.3d 880
E.D. Tenn.2023Background
- After Bostock, President Biden's Executive Order 13,988 directed agencies to review sex-discrimination rules; USDA reviewed SNAP/SNAP‑Ed rules and issued a May 5, 2022 policy memo, Q&A, and supplemental memo (the "Memoranda").
- USDA issued a Final Rule amending the Federal‑State Agreement (7 C.F.R. § 272.2) to require states to assure nondiscrimination in SNAP “on the grounds of sex, including gender identity and sexual orientation.”
- The Memoranda instructed states to update complaint procedures, public notices, and posters to reflect that gender identity and sexual orientation are covered when administering USDA‑funded programs; SNAP‑Ed is limited to nutrition education sites.
- Twenty state plaintiffs sued, seeking to enjoin enforcement and vacate the Memoranda and Final Rule, alleging APA violations, statutory misinterpretation (Title IX, FNA), and multiple constitutional claims (Spending Clause, First and Tenth Amendments, nondelegation, separation of powers).
- Plaintiffs conceded they do not currently deny SNAP certification based on gender identity or sexual orientation but alleged compliance costs and broader institutional impacts; they moved for a preliminary injunction.
- The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims and denied the preliminary injunction, holding that Title IX and the FNA encompass gender‑identity and sexual‑orientation protections for SNAP administration and that the Memoranda were nonbinding guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / ripeness | States: compliance costs and threat of enforcement create concrete, imminent injury. | USDA: threat of enforcement speculative; pre‑enforcement review improper. | States have standing and claims are ripe based on immediate compliance costs. |
| Are the Memoranda final agency actions | States: Memoranda impose new obligations and are reviewable. | USDA: Memoranda are nonbinding guidance reiterating existing duties. | Memoranda are nonfinal, nonbinding policy statements; not subject to APA review. |
| APA notice‑and‑comment (Final Rule) | States: adding "including gender identity and sexual orientation" exceeded NPRM—lack of fair notice. | USDA: Final Rule is a logical outgrowth of the NPRM and Bostock reasoning. | Final Rule satisfied APA notice requirement; addition was a logical outgrowth. |
| Arbitrary & capricious / reliance interests | States: USDA ignored reliance interests (sex‑separated facilities, institutions). | USDA: Rule applies only to SNAP administration and does not affect institutional policies. | No arbitrary‑and‑capricious error; Rule limited to SNAP and does not disturb sex‑separation carveouts. |
| Statutory interpretation (Title IX & FNA) | States: "on the basis of sex" does not unambiguously cover gender identity or sexual orientation. | USDA: under Bostock reasoning, but‑for/motivating‑factor causation makes such discrimination sex‑based. | Title IX and FNA unambiguously prohibit gender‑identity and sexual‑orientation discrimination in SNAP administration. |
| Spending Clause / coercion | States: Rule lacked clear notice and coerces states via funding threats. | USDA: statutes already condition funds on nondiscrimination; not coercive—enforces status quo. | Condition provides clear notice; not unduly coercive like NFIB’s Medicaid expansion. |
| Tenth Amendment / anticommandeering | States: Rule commandeers state policy and intrudes on reserved powers (schools, etc.). | USDA: Rule conditions funds and does not require states to enact laws or regulate state institutions generally. | No anticommandeering or Tenth Amendment violation; Rule is a lawful funding condition limited to SNAP. |
| First Amendment / Free exercise | States: Rule forces speech/posting and may conflict with religious liberty; compels use of pronouns. | USDA: Rule does not regulate professors’ speech or compel religion‑inconsistent conduct in non‑SNAP contexts. | Dismissed: States lack a viable First Amendment cause here; Rule does not reach professorial speech or religious practice as pled. |
| Nondelegation / separation of powers | States: Rule exceeds agency authority and unlawfully delegates legislative power. | USDA: statutes supply intelligible principles; Rule implements statutory nondiscrimination. | No nondelegation or separation‑of‑powers violation; statutes provide adequate guidance for the Rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (interpreting Title VII to include sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination; core analytical framework applied)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (states entitled to special solicitude in standing analysis)
- Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994) (limits on pre‑enforcement judicial review where Congress provided alternative remedies)
- Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) (Spending Clause coercion analysis)
- Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency rulemaking)
- New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (anticommandeering principle and limits on commandeering state governments)
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92 (2015) (notice‑and‑comment rulemaking requirements and logical‑outgrowth standard)
- Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019) (intelligible‑principle test for delegation challenges)