New York Attorney General Letitia James and District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine are co-leading a lawsuit filed Thursday against the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

This lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Requirements for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents, a rule passed on December 5 by the Food Nutrition Service (FNS) of the USDA. The attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and New York City also joined the lawsuit against the USDA on behalf of their respective states and city.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Requirements for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents, which becomes effective April 1, revises the conditions under which the USDA would waive the able-bodied adult without dependents (ABAWD) time limit in areas that have an unemployment rate of over 10 percent or a lack of sufficient jobs. The rule also limits carryover of ABAWD discretionary exemptions. According to the lawsuit, the implemented rule would deprive between 688,000 and 850,000 individuals of nutritional assistance.

Currently, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits are time-limited to unemployed individuals aged 18 to 49 who are not disabled or raising minor children—commonly referred to as ABAWDs. ABAWDs may not receive SNAP benefits for more than three months in any 36-month period unless they are employed or participate in a work/training program for at least 20 hours a week. This time limit is to engage ABAWDs in the workforce. A 1996 statute allowed states to seek a waiver to suspend the time limit for “any group of individuals in the State” if the area had an unemployment rate over 10 percent or there was an insufficient number of jobs available.

The rule published on December 5 eliminates the state’s ability to define the geographic scope of a waiver request and creates a new criterion of an unemployment threshold. States are required to rely on unemployment numbers for the entire population rather than on the available of employment for ABAWDs. States also are limited in carrying forward unused exemptions.

The lawsuit claims that the new rule “ignores the substantial fiscal and administrative burdens newly imposed on States,” including state-wide economic harm and increased costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The lawsuit also claims, among other issues, that the USDA failed to engage in a proper rulemaking process, because stakeholders did not have the opportunity to comment on important aspects of the rule.

Because of this, the lawsuit requests that “this Court vacate the Rule and enjoin its implementation because it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 USC § 706(2)(A), and because the Rule was promulgated without observance of procedure required by law under the APA, 5 USC § 706(2)(D).”