Maryland has thrown its weight behind a coalition of 21 states suing the Trump administration over new U.S. Department of Agriculture rules that officials say could yank billions of dollars from state‑run nutrition programs. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, targets agency directives issued late last year that tie federal aid to new immigration and anti‑DEI requirements. Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown has blasted the policies as vague and a setup for “arbitrary enforcement.”
What the lawsuit says
The complaint, brought by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts together with a coalition of state attorneys general, focuses on a series of USDA memoranda that went out to state agencies in October and November 2025. Those directives ordered changes to how states administer SNAP, demanded detailed data on benefit recipients, and signaled that November benefits might be put on hold. The states argue that USDA overstepped its legal authority, skipped required administrative procedures, and put millions of households at risk of immediate harm. The allegations are spelled out in the Massachusetts filing, according to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.
How courts have responded
Courts have not spoken with one voice so far. A federal judge in Massachusetts granted temporary relief last fall, pausing some of USDA’s moves. At the same time, federal appeals courts in related cases have been more receptive to the administration’s arguments.
In one closely watched decision, a unanimous Fourth Circuit panel threw out a Baltimore district judge’s sweeping injunction against Trump administration executive orders on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Chief Judge Albert Diaz wrote, “The President may determine his policy priorities and instruct his agents to make funding decisions based on them.” The opinion underscores how high the stakes are and how differently judges are reading these fights; the full ruling is available on Courtlistener.
Why Maryland officials say it matters
For Maryland leaders, this is not just a battle over legal fine print. The state takes in more than $2 billion a year in USDA funding, money that underpins programs ranging from school meals to WIC to SNAP. A significant chunk of the state’s food security infrastructure is tied to those federal dollars.
The policies are vague and risk states being on the receiving end of "arbitrary enforcement,” Attorney General Anthony Brown said, as reported by WMAR2 News. Maryland’s decision to join the lawsuit signals concern that the new rules could turn core nutrition programs into political bargaining chips.
Legal stakes and next steps
The Massachusetts lawsuit asks the court to block the USDA’s notices and keep benefits flowing under the current rules while the case plays out. If the district judge refuses, the states say they are prepared to go straight to the appeals court.
This case is one of several multi‑state challenges to Trump administration directives on DEI and gender identity that are now moving through federal trial and appellate courts, according to JustSecurity. Lawyers on both sides are already gearing up for a fast‑paced sequence of new filings, emergency motions, and rapid appeals as they fight over what happens in the meantime.
For Maryland families who rely on federal nutrition programs, the question is straightforward, even if the law is not: will the money keep coming while judges sort this out. The case remains active in the District of Massachusetts, and whatever that court decides could reshape how far federal agencies can go when they try to tie political priorities to formula and entitlement funding.
