A legal fight that could impact millions of low-income Americans just took a major step forward — and this time, the person in charge may be on their side.
A Clinton-appointed judge, Maxine M. Chesney, has officially been assigned to a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to collect personal data from people receiving help through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
Here is what you need to know, broken down in plain and simple terms.
Why is Trump being sued over SNAP data?
This all started with a controversial executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March 2025. That order told federal agencies to share more information with one another — and that included asking states to hand over personal details about every single SNAP recipient going back to January 2020.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) followed that order and began asking state governments to send over:
- Names
- Social Security numbers
- Dates of birth
- Home addresses
- Immigration status
Now, attorneys general from 20 states, the District of Columbia, and Kentucky are suing the USDA and the Trump administration. They say the demand for this private data is illegal and violates federal privacy laws.
Who is Judge Maxine M. Chesney?
This is where things get interesting.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney is not new to the bench. She was appointed by President Bill Clinton and has been a federal judge in California since 1995. Many people are hopeful that her experience — and her background — could bring a more balanced perspective to this case.
Her assignment to the lawsuit signals a potential shift, especially for families worried about what this data collection could mean for their safety and privacy.
Why the lawsuit matters to you
If you or someone in your family uses SNAP benefits, this lawsuit could have a real impact on your day-to-day life.
Here is what the states are saying:
- The USDA is overstepping its authority by asking for too much information
- Sharing this data could lead to misuse by other agencies, like immigration or law enforcement
- States are being forced to choose between protecting residents’ privacy or losing millions in federal SNAP funding
The lawsuit is basically saying: This is not just about data. It is about protecting families from fear and unfair targeting.
How many Americans could be affected?
As of May 2025, about 41.7 million people were using SNAP benefits each month. In New York alone, 2.9 million people — including nearly 1 million children — rely on SNAP. Nationwide, over half of SNAP recipients are in families with children.
So yes, this lawsuit is a big deal. It touches millions of households, especially those with mixed immigration status, who might be afraid of their information getting into the wrong hands.
What leaders are saying
Several state attorneys general have spoken out strongly against the Trump policy. These are some of their opinions on the policy:
- New York AG Letitia James said:
“Families should be able to get the food assistance they need without fearing that they will be targeted by this administration.” - Massachusetts AG Andrea Campbell reminded people that:
“SNAP already has one of the most rigorous quality control systems in the federal government.” - California AG Rob Bonta was blunt, saying:
“President Trump continues to weaponize private and sensitive personal information… to create a culture of fear.”
These statements show just how serious the states are about fighting back.
What happens next in the case?
Right now, the case is still in the early stages. No court hearings have been scheduled yet. The judge will first review the legal arguments from both sides and the states want the court to block the USDA’s order and stop any data sharing that goes beyond what the law allows.
What the court decides could set a major precedent. If the states win, it could limit the federal government’s power to collect and use personal information from low-income Americans in programs like SNAP.
Related article:
These are the three products that do not fall into Trump’s 15% tariffs on the European Union
