Shapiro
HARRISBURG - Asked why it stopped funding a program that helps both Pennsylvania's farmers and hungry families, President Trump's Department of Agriculture had a simple response.
"Money is finite," opens a July 17 motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Gov. Josh Shapiro, who sued the USDA in June in Harrisburg federal court. Shapiro is challenging Agriculture secretary Brooke Rollins' decision to break a funding agreement known as the Local Food Purchase Assistance 2025 Cooperative Agreement.
Rollins in March canceled it and another program that used federal funds to buy food from local farmers. The LFPA bought food for food banks, and the other program bought food for schools.
About $660 million for school food was cut nationwide. Pennsylvania had received $30 million in two prior rounds of funding for food banks, but the USDA utilized a stipulation in the LFPA that allowed it to cancel the Biden-era contract within 60 days. That halted $13 million in federal funds.
"(A)ll spending decisions - whether by single-family households or by federal agencies with nationwide mandates - are discretionary assessments of opportunity costs: a dollar spent here is a dollar unavailable there, making difficult tradeoffs often necessary," the USDA's motion to dismiss says.
Gov. Shapiro and Pennsylvavnia Department of Agriculture secretary Russel Redding called the move unlawful and worried about its impact on farmers. Their lawsuit complains that the termination notice did not fully explain why.
The USDA said LFPA no longer effectuated its priorities, but Pennsylvania argues 100% of the money is used to feed hungry families while helping farmers with their bottom lines. Two prior rounds of funding had provided $30 million in food to more than six million households.
The case will come down to whether Pennsylvania can challenge budget issues in the federal government. The USDA says it can't, though the Commonwealth crafted its complaint to make claims under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Pennsylvania said the termination as arbitrary and capcirious, in violation of the APA. If any agency action reflects a changed position, that agency must acknowledge and display awareness of the change, they say.
Redding had written the USDA to ask why LFPA was no longer a priority but received no response. Further, Pennsylvania makes a due process claim, arguing a hearing on the termination was required.
The USDA says these legal claims mask the true intent of the lawsuit: Second-guessing the federal government's financial decisions.
"The USDA's decision as to how best to allocate the funds that would have been used fo Pensylvania's contemplated cooperative agreement is one committed to its discretion 'by law,' thus excepting it from judicial review," the USDA said.
Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court held the Court of Federal Claims, which handles contract issues with the federal government, was the proper forum for a case involving the termination of federal grants. That's where Pennsylvania should have filed, the USDA says.
"The Supreme Court's holding was no innovation of law," the motion to dismiss says.
"The D.C. Circuit - which has a uniquely robust body of jurisprudence over contractual claims against the United States - has long recognized that district courts have no jurisdiction over contractual claims against the United States, even where creative plaintiffs disguise those claims in constitutional, statutory or regulatory garb."
