Pennsylvania is appealing a federal judge’s ruling that let the Trump administration withhold millions of dollars from previously promised grants that pay local farmers to stock food banks.
Gov. Josh Shapiro and state Agriculture secretary Russel Redding on Jan. 2 filed their notice of appeal of federal judge Joseph Saporito, Jr.’s December order that said they sued in the wrong court.
They sued in Harrisburg, though the appropriate court for contract disputes with the feds is the Court of Federal Appeals. They said their lawsuit is a challenge to how the decision was made, not over the contract being broken.
Shapiro seeks $13 million in funding for the state to buy food from farmers that will be placed in food banks.
Previous rounds of funding from the Biden-era program helped feed six million households, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture decided that was no longer a priority.
“Pennsylvania farmers had a promise from the federal government to provide funding to purchase fresh, locally grown food for our food banks, providing reliable income for farmers and putting nutritious food on the table for families in need but the federal government abruptly canceled the agreement,” Kayla Anderson, spokesperson for Shapiro, previously told the Pennsylvania Record.
Pennsylvania sued last year after federal USDA secretary Brooke Rollins canceled the Local Food Purchase Assistance 2025 Cooperative and another program that used federal funds to buy food from local farmers.
That round of funding from the LFPA was to provide $13 million to buy food for food banks, and the other program purchased food for schools.
The suit alleges violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, which regulates how the federal government issues rules and regulations.
“Neither the termination notice nor the termination letter explained why USDA had determined that a program that uses 100% of its funding to feed hungry families no longer effectuated its priorities,” the lawsuit says.
Saporito wrote that, despite the complaint not asking specifically for that $13 million but instead requesting an injunction because the feds’ didn’t follow proper rulemaking, the case was about money and “foreclosed” by recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court held the Court of Federal Claims is the proper forum for a case involving the termination of federal grants. That’s where Pennsylvania should have filed, the USDA said, and Saporito agreed.
“(T)he APA claims asserted by the plaintiffs in this case are essentially contractual, rather than based on federal statute or regulation, and thus they belong in the Court of Federal Claims,” Saporito wrote.
“At bottom, the source of the rights the plaintiffs seek to vindicate is the LFPA25 cooperative agreement itself, not any statute or regulation.”
Pennsylvania had received $30 million in two prior rounds of funding, but the USDA utilized a stipulation in the LFPA that allowed it to cancel the contract within 60 days.
Shapiro and Redding called the move unlawful and worried about its impact on farmers. Their lawsuit said the termination was arbitrary and capricious, 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.
In arguing that “money is finite,” the USDA said Pennsylvania’s claims masked the true intent of the lawsuit: Second-guessing the federal government’s financial decisions.
