In a May decision, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason issued a summary judgment finding that SNAP statutes “do not create privately enforceable rights” that permit residents to sue the state government.
A federal judge has ruled against a coalition of Alaska residents demanding that the state process applications for food assistance in a reasonably timely manner.
According to Alaska Public Media, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of 10 residents in 2023.
All of the plaintiffs, notes APM, sued after the state Department of Health failed to make any decision on their applications for the federally-subsidized Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In legal filings, attorneys noted that such benefits applications must typically be processed within seven to 30 days.
Late last year, lawyers for the state argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic meant that the existence of a federal SNAP statute does not necessarily entitle applicants to receive timely decisions.
In a May decision, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason agreed, issuing a summary judgment finding that SNAP statutes “do not create privately enforceable rights” that permit residents to sue the state government.
Nick Feronti, an attorney with the Northern Justice Project, told The Anchorage Daily News that his clients plan to appeal Gleason’s decision.
“There’s no dispute that there are very clear federal laws that say, ‘Hey, look, state of Alaska, you must process these applications and give people their benefits in 30 days,’” said Feronti, whose organization is representing the plaintiffs. “And there’s also no dispute that the state has violated that law thousands or tens of thousands of times, and is still doing it.”
“But what’s happened now is Judge Gleason has said, ‘I can no longer enforce this law,’” Feronti told the Anchorage Daily News.
Feronti said he believes that changes to the judicial system have made it more difficult for federal judges to effectively enforce laws.
“The court has changed the rules about what laws you’re allowed to enforce,” he said. “We went from having this civil rights era where you could enforce lots of laws to now us having to look very hard to find any law you can enforce in federal court.”
In the case of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said that the enforcement of certain federal statutes should be resolved “by the people’s elected representatives, not unelected judges.”
Speaking to the Daily News, Feronti questioned this kind of logic.
“When states inevitably mess up as they implement these new requirements, will people have any recourse?” he asked. “The answer increasingly seems like, ‘at least not in court.’”
Sources
Federal judge sides with state in Alaskans’ lawsuit over SNAP delays
U.S. judge precludes Alaskans from suing over delays in federal food assistance
Join the conversation!