More than 20 states and D.C. filed suit Aug. 4 to block a Trump administration TANF data-sharing rule.
Why it matters: The case could shape how much sensitive benefit data federal agencies can share with other parts of government. It also has immediate privacy and compliance stakes for states that run safety-net programs.
- The lawsuit targets a Trump administration rule tied to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF.
- Plaintiffs include more than 20 states, the District of Columbia, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
- The suit was filed Aug. 4 in federal court in Washington.
- AP reported the rule could let the federal agency share TANF recipients' immigration status, Social Security numbers and other personal data.
More than 20 states and the District of Columbia sued Aug. 4 in federal court in Washington to block a Trump administration rule they say would open the door to sharing sensitive TANF records. AP reported the rule could allow the agency overseeing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to share recipients' immigration status, Social Security numbers and other personal information.
A federal TANF overview says the program is a block grant for low-income families that provides more than $16 billion annually to states, the District of Columbia and tribal governments. States use those funds for cash aid, job training and related services.
The coalition says the rule conflicts with privacy protections and administrative-law limits. AP said the Administration for Children and Families declined to comment as of Monday.
Among the plaintiffs are the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, alongside the multistate coalition. The immediate dispute is whether the administration can move ahead with the data-sharing policy while the case plays out in court.
By the numbers
- More than 20 - states in the coalition suing to block the rule.
- $16 billion - annual TANF funding provided to states, D.C. and tribal governments.
Yes, but: The complaint is an early challenge, and the administration can still defend the rule as lawful while the case moves forward.