Vermont has joined 24 other states in suing the federal government to prevent the suspension of food benefits for low-income families due to the ongoing federal shutdown.
Attorney General Charity Clark announced her decision on Tuesday, the day after Gov. Phil Scott said he supported the move.
The case, in federal court in Massachusetts, accuses the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its secretary, Brooke Rollins, of unlawfully suspending the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program beginning November 1.
The program helps about 42 million Americans buy food. In Vermont, where the benefit is called 3SquaresVT, 65,109 people receive an average of $194 per month in benefits, and the program’s annual value is roughly $151 million per year.
“Denying SNAP funding for millions of Americans, when Congress created a contingency plan to ensure no American goes hungry is illegal and it is cruel,” Clark said in a statement. “SNAP was created to help feed our neighbors in hard times. I’m suing the Trump Administration to protect Vermonters so that no one goes hungry.”
The suit is Clark’s 32nd against the Trump administration. Scott, whose administration has backed some, but not all, of Clark’s lawsuits to date, had signaled on Monday that he would support a suit over SNAP benefits.
Clark said Congress has set aside funds for just such a purpose, but is refusing to release them.
“It is clear the federal government is making a deliberate, illegal, and inhumane choice not to fund the crucial SNAP program,” she wrote.
Lawmakers and the governor will meet on Wednesday at noon to decide whether to supplement 3SquaresVT with state funds. The program costs about $12.6 million per month.
Democratic lawmakers have called for the state to pay 100 percent of the benefits during any suspension. Scott last week proposed paying 50 percent. It’s unclear if they’ve reached a compromise.
Advocates have said any lapse in benefits could have dire consequences for individuals, put tremendous strain on local food shelves and harm retailers who accept the electronic payments.
The suit asks a judge to find the USDA’s actions to be “contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and an abuse of discretion” and to order USDA to continue making SNAP payments to states.
The states argue that the contingency funds have already been appropriated by Congress, and that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has demonstrated a willingness to fund other programs, such as farm services offices, during the shutdown.
