AG Tong Stops Feds from Using Your Medicaid Info to Deport Families

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong has been at the forefront of a wave of multistate litigation aimed at checking the Trump Administration’s efforts to stretch federal power into areas long reserved to states. Over the past months, Tong and allied attorneys general have filed and won key motions in three high-stakes battles: protecting the privacy of SNAP participants, blocking immigration-related conditions on victims’ services grants, and stopping the use of Medicaid data for immigration enforcement.

The fights share a common thread: states pushing back against federal agencies that, in the coalition’s view, are unlawfully adding conditions or reversing policies without congressional authorization or proper process. Together, they illustrate how the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), constitutional limits on the spending power, and federalism principles remain critical guardrails.

SNAP Data Grab
In July, the U.S. Department of Agriculture abruptly demanded that states transfer five years of detailed SNAP participant data—including Social Security numbers, addresses, and even grocery purchase histories—on just three weeks’ notice. The agency threatened to cut off over $74 million in administrative funds for Connecticut alone if states refused. Tong and a coalition sued, arguing the demand violated the SNAP Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act, and the APA.

The motion for preliminary relief highlights both legal and practical flaws. The SNAP Act only authorizes USDA to inspect records as necessary, not to seize every participant’s file. The agency skipped PRA review, ignored matching safeguards, and brushed aside cybersecurity risks of warehousing millions of records. It also failed to consider how disclosure would chill participation in a program that already has one of the lowest fraud rates in government. The case tees up a classic Spending Clause clash: whether the federal government can coerce states into handing over data by threatening essential funds. A hearing is set for October.

VOCA Immigration Conditions
At the same time, DOJ’s Office for Victims of Crime announced that any VOCA-funded program that “impedes” immigration enforcement would lose eligibility. That meant shelters, hotlines, and compensation programs serving victims of domestic violence, trafficking, and other crimes could see their funding cut unless they gave ICE notice and access on vague terms.

Tong and other states filed suit, calling the conditions ultra vires. VOCA is a formula grant: Congress set the amounts and purposes. DOJ, they argue, cannot rewrite the statute to conscript victim services into immigration enforcement. The complaint points to 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a), which forbids DOJ from exercising “direction, supervision, or control” over state criminal justice agencies. It also argues the conditions are unconstitutional under the Spending Clause—ambiguous, unrelated to VOCA’s purpose, and coercive given the dollars at stake. And under the APA, DOJ ignored reliance interests and even contradicted its own regulation that victim services must be provided without regard to immigration status. Courts have already struck down similar conditions on Byrne JAG grants, making the states’ case strong.

Medicaid Data Sharing Victory
Most recently, Tong secured an early win in State of California, et al. v. HHS. In that case, HHS’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services abandoned a decade-old policy and began providing Medicaid patient data to DHS for immigration enforcement. For years, states and patients were assured this would not happen. When CMS flipped the policy without notice or explanation, states sued.

On August 12, 2025, Judge Vince Chhabria granted a preliminary injunction. He held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their APA claim because HHS and DHS had engaged in arbitrary and capricious rulemaking. The agencies failed to grapple with reliance interests, failed to consider narrower alternatives, and ignored the risk that participation in Medicaid would drop if immigrants feared their records would be shared with ICE. The injunction blocks DHS from using Medicaid data obtained from the plaintiff states, and bars HHS from sharing new data, until litigation concludes or the agencies complete a proper, reasoned decision-making process.

Attorney General Tong praised the ruling: “Donald Trump does not need your private medical records to secure the border. ICE does not need your immunization records, your cancer diagnosis, your prescriptions, or your weight. This rushed and sloppy plan was about one thing—bullying immigrant families away from seeking healthcare. And that makes all of us less healthy and less safe. This is a major early victory, but we are prepared to keep fighting for as long as it takes to protect our privacy and public health.”

The Medicaid case underscores the power of reliance interests in APA litigation. Courts are increasingly unwilling to let agencies reverse course on longstanding policies without considering how states, providers, and individuals have structured their lives and systems around prior assurances. It also highlights the real-world consequences: disenrollment from Medicaid, strain on safety-net hospitals, and harm to public health.

The Larger Picture
These three cases reveal a pattern: federal agencies attempting to use funding streams and data-sharing arrangements to advance immigration enforcement at the expense of privacy, program integrity, and state authority. Tong and his allies are using a mix of statutory claims, APA review, and constitutional arguments to push back. And courts are showing a willingness to scrutinize rushed or coercive agency moves, particularly where they threaten essential programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and victim services.

For Connecticut residents, the bottom line is clear. These legal battles protect not only privacy and federal-state balance, but also the continuity of critical safety net services. SNAP continues to feed families. VOCA continues to support victims. Medicaid remains a gateway to healthcare for millions. And through litigation, states are making sure these programs are not repurposed into tools of immigration enforcement.

IF YOU NEED A LAWYER CONTACT US