Beyond Compliance: What Vermont's AG Can Still Do to Protect SNAP Data
Attorney General Clark's office still has the power to defend the privacy of Vermonters and challenge the boundaries of federal power.
Last month, as 21 states launched a legal battle against the Trump administration to protect the private records of food stamp recipients, Vermont chose a different path. Governor Phil Scott’s administration complied with the federal demand for data, a decision that Attorney General Charity Clark said tied her hands and prevented her from joining the multistate lawsuit.
While the governor’s choice to hand over the data effectively ended one legal chapter, it may not have closed the book. A detailed analysis of the law and the actions taken by other states reveals that despite Vermont's compliance, the Attorney General’s office may still have powerful legal options to challenge the federal government and protect the privacy of thousands of Vermonters.
The Governor's Choice and the AG's Dilemma
Governor Scott's administration defended its decision as a pragmatic one. According to statements from his office, the federal government has a legal right to the information, and refusing to comply could have risked federal penalties, potentially jeopardizing the very SNAP benefits that feed over 65,000 Vermonters. This put the administration in a difficult position: defy the federal government and risk critical funding, or comply and face criticism for handing over sensitive data.
This compliance, however, created a direct legal obstacle for Attorney General Clark. The primary goal of the lawsuit filed by the 21 other states was to secure an injunction—a court order to block the transfer of data. Once Vermont’s data was sent, the central point of that specific legal action became moot for our state. As AG Clark stated, she could not sue to stop something that had already happened.
This situation highlights a complex and often misunderstood aspect of state government. The National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) notes that while the attorney general is the chief legal officer of the state, their power can be limited by the actions of the governor or the legislature. When one branch of the state government, in this case the executive branch, has already acted, it complicates the AG's legal standing to challenge that action on behalf of the entire state.
The Untraveled Legal Path: Seeking a Declaratory Judgment
While an injunction to stop the data transfer is off the table, it was not the only remedy the other states sought. A key part of their lawsuit, according to press releases from the offices of the California and Washington attorneys general, was to ask the court for a declaratory judgment.
A declaratory judgment is a powerful but often overlooked legal tool. As defined by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, it is a definitive court ruling that clarifies the rights of the parties and declares the legality of a particular action, without necessarily ordering a party to do something or pay damages. The other states have asked the court to formally declare that the USDA's demand for SNAP data was unlawful, unconstitutional, and a violation of federal privacy laws.
Even though Vermont has already sent the data, legal analysis suggests that AG Clark could still file a lawsuit seeking a similar declaration. The goal of such a suit would be to establish a binding legal precedent. A ruling that the federal demand was illegal would serve as a powerful shield against similar federal overreaches in the future, both for Vermont and for other states. It would be a forward-looking legal strategy, aimed at preventing a repeat of this situation.
Putting a Leash on the Data: Suing to Restrict Its Use
The transfer of data does not mean that all control is lost. The primary fear expressed by the suing states was not just the collection of the data, but how it might be used. They argued that the information could be used for purposes entirely unrelated to the administration of the SNAP program. Specifically, the California Attorney General's Office noted the risk that the data could be used for immigration enforcement by agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
This opens another potential legal avenue for Vermont. AG Clark could file a lawsuit seeking an injunction, not to stop the data transfer, but to severely restrict the federal government's use of the data it now possesses. Such a lawsuit could argue that using the data for immigration enforcement would be a violation of the terms of the SNAP program and a breach of the federal privacy statutes cited in the multistate lawsuit.
This would be a proactive legal measure to build a "firewall" around the data that has already been shared. It would, in effect, say to the federal government: "You have our data, but you can only use it for the single, lawful purpose for which it was intended." This would directly address the core privacy concerns that prompted the lawsuit in the first place.
The Question of "Standing": Can Vermont Still Sue?
The immediate counterargument to these options is the legal concept of standing. To sue, a party must show the court that they have suffered a concrete injury. As detailed in resources from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Congressional Research Service, a plaintiff must generally prove three things: they suffered a real injury, the injury was caused by the defendant, and a court decision can fix the injury. A skeptic might argue that since Vermont complied, the state has not suffered an injury that a court can fix.
However, a strong case can be made that Vermont has indeed suffered a significant and ongoing injury. Legal analysis suggests the injury in a case like this is not just the one-time transfer of data. It includes:
A Violation of State Sovereignty: The federal government has arguably coerced Vermont into acting against its own interest in protecting the privacy of its residents.
A "Chilling Effect": The knowledge that their private information is being shared with the federal government for unspecified purposes could deter eligible Vermonters, particularly those in immigrant families, from applying for the food assistance they need. This "chilling effect" undermines the state's public health and welfare goals.
A Dangerous Precedent: Allowing the federal government's demand to go unchallenged creates a precedent that could be used to demand other sensitive information in the future, eroding the state's control over its own programs.
By framing the injury in these terms, the Attorney General could argue that Vermont has a clear and ongoing stake in the legal outcome, giving the state the necessary standing to bring a lawsuit.
While the governor's decision to comply with the federal demand was a significant moment in this ongoing national story, it does not have to be the final word for Vermont. The legal tools of a declaratory judgment and an injunction to restrict data use remain potentially available. Attorney General Clark's office still has the power to defend the privacy of Vermonters and challenge the boundaries of federal power. The path is more complex now, but it is far from a dead end.