Department of Agriculture v. Kurtz (2024)

Massachusetts and the co-plaintiff states have standing to challenge the USDA's policy change because federal nutrition assistance and agricultural programs operate through state-federal partnerships where states implement and partially fund federal requirements, giving them a direct interest in how those programs are administered. The states must demonstrate that the USDA's decision to reverse or modify the prior policy was arbitrary and capricious (that is, made without reasoned explanation or in contradiction to the statute's terms), requiring them to show either that the agency departed from prior policy without adequate justification or that the new policy is untethered to the statutory authority the USDA invokes. The court's analysis will likely focus on whether the agency provided a reasoned explanation for the policy reversal and whether that explanation is supported by the regulatory record, particularly given that the change occurred as part of a broader executive pivot and may have lacked the deliberative process the APA demands. If the states can establish that the USDA acted without reasoned decision-making or exceeded its statutory mandate, they are likely to obtain preliminary injunctive relief to preserve the status quo pending resolution of the merits.