Washington State Can Terminate Food Stamps for Lawful Immigrants

From the Associated Press:

Thousands of poor immigrant families in Washington could soon face cuts in the food aid they receive, after a federal appeals court cleared the way Wednesday for lawmakers to reduce or eliminate the program.

The Legislature tried a year ago to cut the program in the face of severe budget woes, but the decision was blocked by U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman in Seattle. The judge sided with immigrants who claimed the decision was discriminatory and violated their rights to due process.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the state’s actions posed no such concerns.

The Department of Social and Health Services will consult with lawmakers about how they want to respond to the ruling. That could include pushing ahead with proposals in the House and Senate budgets to reduce the program’s spending in half, moving to eliminate it altogether, or waiting to see whether the plaintiffs in the case seek reconsideration or appeal the decision, said Babs Roberts, director of the department’s Community Services Division.

She said the department was pleased the appeals court found that the state had the authority to cut the program, but added: “It’s a double edged sword. It’s very hard to celebrate this decision in any way, because it says you can go ahead and cut essential benefits to these families.”

The Food Assistance Program serves immigrants who are in the country legally and do not qualify for federal food stamps, in many cases because they haven’t been in the U.S. long enough. It was enacted in the mid-1990s after Congress cut benefits for them as part of welfare reform.

The Washington program serves about 10,500 households and costs about $16 million a year when fully paid for.

Budget proposals in the House and Senate would direct about $8 million a year to the program, enough to give each recipient $3 per day, said Jon Gould, deputy director of the Children’s Alliance, which urged the Legislature to maintain the program.

“These are very low-income families, below the poverty line,” Gould said. “These families, who struggle to put enough food on the table, now no longer have the legal protection that was preventing their children from going hungry.” Read more…

The case is Pimental v. Dreyfus.

bh