A federal judge denied an effort by 22 states and other plaintiffs to temporarily block the Department of Homeland Security from receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families data, finding the challengers had not sufficiently demonstrated either standing or irreparable harm.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal judge has rejected an effort by 22 states and other plaintiffs to immediately stop the federal government from sharing welfare-recipient information with the Department of Homeland Security, ruling that the challengers failed to establish two requirements necessary for preliminary relief.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia denied the request for a preliminary injunction on Sept. 28 in litigation challenging federal access to information collected through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, commonly known as TANF.
Boasberg concluded that the states had not demonstrated that they were likely to have legal standing to pursue their claims. He separately found that even if they could establish standing, they had not shown that they faced the type of immediate and irreparable harm required for a preliminary injunction.
The decision allows the disputed data-sharing arrangement to proceed while the underlying lawsuit continues. It does not resolve the merits of the states’ broader legal challenge or prevent Boasberg from ultimately ruling in their favor later in the case.
The litigation followed a federal policy allowing the Department of Health and Human Services to share information involving TANF recipients with DHS and other government entities for stated program-integrity and compliance purposes.
TANF is a federal block-grant program administered largely through states that provides financial assistance and other services to low-income families with children.
States participating in the program submit extensive information to the federal government, including recipient Social Security numbers, income information, citizenship status, employment information and details concerning benefits received.
The plaintiffs argued that broader disclosure of that information would damage public confidence in TANF and discourage eligible people from participating.
According to their theory of injury, people concerned about their personal information being shared with immigration authorities could avoid applying for assistance or leave the program. The states said they could then face additional expenses as they attempted to provide services to those residents through other means.
Boasberg found that the argument was plausible but insufficiently supported by evidence at this stage of the litigation.
“While such a consequence—and, indeed, Plaintiffs’ logical chain of events—seems plausible to the Court, it cannot rest on its own intuitions; it must, instead, consider the ‘specific facts’ provided,” Boasberg wrote.
The states submitted declarations from government officials predicting that disclosure of TANF data would have a chilling effect on enrollment.
Boasberg said those assertions were not accompanied by enough factual material demonstrating that recipients were actually likely to leave the program or decline assistance because of the information-sharing policy.
For example, the states had not provided declarations from TANF recipients saying they intended to withdraw from or avoid the program because of the disclosures.
That evidentiary gap affected the states’ effort to demonstrate standing.
Standing requires plaintiffs to show a concrete or imminent injury that is connected to the challenged government action and that can likely be addressed by the court.
Boasberg found the states had not sufficiently established that chain of injury for purposes of obtaining preliminary relief.
He then addressed an independent problem with their request.
Even assuming the states could establish standing, Boasberg said they had not demonstrated irreparable harm — another requirement for obtaining an injunction before a case has been fully decided.
The states pointed in part to costs they expected to incur notifying welfare recipients about the federal disclosures.
Boasberg concluded that those expenses did not establish irreparable injury because the states themselves had chosen to incur them.
“Courts in this district have consistently held that ‘a preliminary injunction movant does not satisfy the irreparable harm criterion when the alleged harm is self-inflicted,’” the judge wrote.
The ruling therefore rested on more than a single procedural issue.
Boasberg found the plaintiffs had not adequately shown standing and further determined that their request would fail on the separate irreparable-harm requirement even if the standing obstacle were overcome.
The plaintiffs include Massachusetts, New York and Wisconsin, along with other states challenging the federal policy.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear are also plaintiffs, as is the District of Columbia.
The states filed their lawsuit in August after the Department of Health and Human Services adopted a policy expanding circumstances under which TANF information could be shared with DHS.
The administration has argued that the arrangement complies with federal law and serves legitimate government purposes connected with eligibility, immigration status and program integrity.
The Justice Department separately said this month that states participating in TANF have reporting obligations under federal welfare law involving individuals known to be unlawfully present in the United States.
Opponents have characterized the policy differently, arguing that it gives immigration authorities access to sensitive information supplied by people seeking assistance for themselves and their families.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat and one of the officials challenging the policy, accused the administration when the lawsuit was filed of improperly using a program created to help low-income families.
“The Trump administration is exploiting a program designed to ensure children do not go hungry and to help needy families get back on their feet in order to fuel its mass surveillance effort,” Bonta said.
Administration attorneys rejected that characterization.
They told the court that the information-sharing policy falls within federal law governing TANF records and urged Boasberg not to prevent its implementation while the lawsuit remains pending.
The dispute is part of a broader fight over how information collected through federal benefit programs can be used by different parts of the government.
TANF requires participating states to provide certain case-level information to HHS. The federal government has said information can be used for compliance and integrity functions, while challengers contend that sharing sensitive recipient information for immigration-related purposes exceeds statutory and privacy protections.
Those substantive questions remain unresolved.
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary form of relief issued before a court reaches a final judgment. Plaintiffs generally must demonstrate, among other requirements, a likelihood of succeeding in the case and a likelihood that they will suffer irreparable injury if a judge does not intervene immediately.
Boasberg’s ruling concludes that the states failed to make the necessary showing for such an order.
It does not amount to a final determination that the administration’s data-sharing policy is lawful.
The distinction is important because the states can continue pursuing their claims as the litigation moves forward, developing additional evidence and asking the court ultimately to invalidate or restrict the policy.
Another federal lawsuit challenging the government’s TANF information-sharing initiative has likewise produced litigation over whether the plaintiffs can obtain immediate relief while their substantive claims are considered.
For the 22-state coalition before Boasberg, however, the immediate result is that DHS access will not be stopped through a preliminary injunction.
The plaintiffs will now have to continue litigating their claims without the temporary protection they sought, while the federal government remains able to implement the challenged information-sharing policy unless a later court order changes that result.
Boasberg could still ultimately agree with the states on some or all of their underlying legal arguments.
For now, his ruling addresses a narrower question: whether they provided enough evidence to justify blocking the policy before those arguments are fully resolved.
He concluded that they did not.
Comments