HR-9456-119
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Sponsored by Tim Burchett (R-TN)
What it does
This bill would amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to limit SNAP (food stamp) eligibility for non-citizens to only those admitted as lawful permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years after that admission. It would eliminate eligibility for other categories of legally present immigrants who currently qualify, such as refugees, asylees, and certain other lawfully present non-citizens, as well as lawful permanent residents who have not yet reached the 10-year mark.
Who benefits
Supporters argue that taxpayers overall benefit from reduced program spending, and that citizens and long-term lawful permanent residents benefit from a system supporters describe as more restricted to established residents. Federal and state administrative agencies may see somewhat lower caseloads for this population.
Who is hurt
Refugees, asylees, individuals granted humanitarian parole, victims of trafficking or domestic violence with special immigration status, and lawful permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. fewer than 10 years would lose SNAP eligibility. Their U.S.-citizen children in mixed-status households may see reduced household food assistance. Food banks and charitable organizations in immigrant-heavy communities could face increased demand, and grocery retailers in those areas may see reduced SNAP-related sales.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal benefits should be reserved for citizens and immigrants who have demonstrated long-term lawful residency, consistent with prior welfare reform principles established in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. They contend narrowing eligibility would reduce federal spending and better align program design with the idea that public benefits should follow sustained lawful presence rather than being available to all lawfully present non-citizen categories.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that refugees and asylees, who are legally admitted specifically because they face persecution and often arrive with few resources, would lose critical nutrition assistance despite having no path to expedite their own admission timeline. They contend the change could increase food insecurity among vulnerable legal populations, including trafficking victims and domestic violence survivors, and may shift costs onto state programs and charities rather than eliminating need.
Constitutional context
Congress holds broad, well-established constitutional authority under the Naturalization Clause and its plenary power over immigration to condition federal benefits on immigration status, as the Supreme Court recognized in Mathews v. Diaz (1976), which held that Congress may treat non-citizens differently from citizens and may draw distinctions among classes of non-citizens in federal benefits programs.
Checks and balances
Congress would set eligibility criteria directly by statute; the Department of Agriculture would implement and enforce the change through SNAP administration, with limited judicial review given the deference courts give Congress on immigrant benefit classifications.
Historical precedent
The 1996 welfare reform law (PRWORA) similarly restricted SNAP eligibility for many non-citizen categories, with later legislation partially restoring benefits for refugees, asylees, and other groups.