Gov. Laura Kelly on Thursday responded to a lawsuit trying to force her to turn over personal food-assistance information to the Trump administration, saying she is adhering to the law and the state is not in immediate danger of losing federal funds.
Accusing Attorney General Kris Kobach of engaging in “histrionics” and factually “unsound” law, the governor says the state is not at risk of losing millions in federal funds to administer the food-assistance program by Sept. 19.
“The respondents are not failing to follow Kansas and federal law in their current refusal to turn over certain data demanded by the USDA,” lawyers for the governor and the state social services secretary argue in their joint response filed Thursday.
“In fact, they are doing the opposite. Moreover, Kansas is not ‘days away from losing millions of dollars of federal funding,’ since the administrative and judicial remedies afforded the state are far from exhausted,” they say.
“In sum, there is no violation of federal or state law taking place, and the emergency alleged by the petitioner does not exist,” they argue.
Kobach argued there was urgency in moving forward with his lawsuit because the federal government would start withholding $10.4 million a quarter from the state as early as Sept. 19 if the governor doesn’t turn over the personal information the agency is seeking as part of an effort to combat fraud and abuse.
Ironically, the governor puts forward the same argument that the U.S. Department of Agriculture makes in battling a lawsuit brought by 21 states trying to stop the agency’s demand for the same personal information sought from Kansas.
In that case, of which Kansas is not a plaintiff, the USDA argued that the request for a stay or a preliminary injunction to stop the demand for information was premature.
The USDA said the 21 plaintiff states in that case had not exhausted their administrative remedies because agency regulations provide the states an opportunity to appeal a determination that they unjustifiably failed to comply with the request for information.
“In short, there is much for the administrative appeal in this matter to resolve, and judicial review at this junction would circumvent that process,” the USDA argued in the case brought by the 21 states.
The governor cites the case filed in federal court in San Francisco as one reason for not ruling immediately on Kobach’s lawsuit – although the attorney general says that a case in a federal judicial circuit outside of Kansas would not be binding locally.
“While Kansas is not a party to that lawsuit, as the petitioner chose not to join same, the court’s decision may have a direct impact on this matter given that the issues are identical,” the governor’s lawyers said.
If the USDA decides to withhold the funds, the Department for Children and Families may file an appeal with the State Food Stamp Appeals Board, the Kelly administration lawyers argue. They note that the appeal automatically stops enforcement.
“Had the petitioner consulted with the respondents, he would have been so advised of DCF’s plan,” the governor’s legal team argues.
“Even if the data is not produced by some arbitrarily set deadline, the entire program is not jeopardized since DCF may later produce the data.
“As the litigation unfolds and the lawfulness of the USDA’s data request is determined, DCF may at any time provide the requested data, which would cease any disallowance or suspension of funds.”
The case filed by Kobach is now before Shawnee County District Judge Teresa Watson, who was appointed to the bench by former Gov. Sam Brownback.
The Kelly legal team urges Watson not to rule on Kobach’s request for a temporary injunction until she has a chance to rule on a forthcoming motion to dismiss.
“This court should decide the motion to dismiss to assure itself it has the jurisdiction to order the relief sought here, which if granted cannot be undone.
“Once the personal information of over 180,000 Kansans is produced, it cannot meaningfully be recalled,” the governor’s lawyers argue. “The damage to privacy and the loss of trust would be immeasurable.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is demanding that Kansas and other states provide records identifying applicants or recipients of food-assistance such as names, birth dates, addresses and Social Security numbers.
The Kelly administration has been steadfast against turning over the information, saying that state and federal law protect personal identifiable food-assistance data except when necessary to administer the program.
The administration says the requested data includes sensitive personal information for more than 730,000 Kansans who lived in a household that applied for or received food-assistance benefits from Jan. 1, 2020, to July 30, 2025.
The request for information was an outgrowth of an executive order signed by the president directing federal agencies to ensure the federal government has unfettered access to comprehensive data from all state programs that receive federal funds.
The USDA said it needs the enrollment information to ensure the integrity of the food-assistance program to protect how taxpayer dollars are spent.
The agency says the data it seeks will ensure it has “full insight” in the integrity of the food-assistance program.
In the absence of data, the agency said it “lacks key information necessary to ensure effective stewardship of taxpayer dollars.”
The USDA said it has already discovered from states that are complying with the data-sharing requirement that fraud or duplication in state distribution of federal funds has gone unreported and needs to be resolved.
The agency said the household information necessary to oversee the food-assistance program is “siloed and diffuse.”
It says the information is spread across the federal government, the 53 states and territories, and processors of electronic benefit cards, which can be used like a debit card at authorized retail food stores to purchase food.
Kelly argues that state law specifically prohibits the disclosure of the requested information absent a recognized exception, which is consistent with federal law.
The governor also says the Kansas Cybersecurity Act prevents unauthorized access of personal information and information regulated by law.
“The Petitioner has failed to provide any meritorious argument that DCF is violating federal law by refusing to produce the requested data at this time,” the legal team says.
“Instead, it is clear that producing confidential data to the USDA so that they can then turn it over to a wide range of organizations for the purpose of enforcing a wide range of laws violates” federal law.
