Cases & Developments

The Department of Agriculture (USDA or “the Department”) has released a notice outlining its updated interpretation of the term “federal public benefit” under 8 U.S.C. § 1611, as defined in Title IV of PRWORA. This change aims to restrict access to federal public benefits for individuals who do not qualify as “qualified aliens” under PRWORA, a category that includes lawful permanent residents, refugees, asylees, and certain other humanitarian immigrants, but excludes undocumented individuals, most Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, and temporary visa holders—absent specific statutory exceptions. Now adopting a plain-meaning approach, the USDA interprets “federal public benefit” broadly to encompass any grant, loan, contract, or license issued by a USDA agency or funded through federal appropriations, without regard to the program’s purpose. This includes direct aid as well as subgrants, subcontracts, indirect recipients, and SNAP-authorized retailers. In conjunction with this notice, the USDA issued the “American First Memorandum for USDA Arrangements and Research Security;” this directive mandates a comprehensive USDA-wide review of current relationships, funding, and arrangements with foreign entities by August 7th. The directive establishes a new justification process and security protocols to ensure USDA resources exclusively support American interests and prevent “the expenditure of American taxpayer funds to help foreign competitors out-produce, out-compete, and out-innovate the United States.” The policy change is intended to align with Executive Order (E.O.) 14218 “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders” and in alignment with the Department of Education’s new interpretive rule rescinding the previous 1997 Dear Colleague Letter on PRWORA. 

Order granting Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification. Petitioners, several individuals impacted by Executive Order (EO) 14160 “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” request class certification and asked the court to enjoin enforcement of the EO, alleging that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, in which the Court held that universal preliminary injunctions were “broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue,” petitioners immediately moved for “certification of a class [consisting] of all current and future children who are or will be denied United States citizenship by [the] Executive Order…, and their parents.”’ The court provisionally certified a narrower class consisting of “all current and future persons who are born on or after February 20, 2025, where (1) that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.” Finally, the court granted petitioners request for a preliminary injunction barring respondents from enforcing the EO against the class while litigation is pending.