Capitol to Capitol | Dec. 10, 2025

Capitol to Capitol | Dec. 10, 2025

Questions? Please use the email icon at left to contact NCSL's State-Federal Affairs Division.

Congressional Updates

Senators Push to Reauthorize Cybersecurity Grant Program for State and Local Governments

On Dec. 1, Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) introduced bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant program originally passed in 2021. The bill would reauthorize this critical grant to states and localities for fiscal year 2026. The House passed similar legislation, HR 5078, the Protecting Information by Local Leaders for Agency Resilience Act last month. Read Sens. Cornyn and Hassan's press release.

Administration Updates

USDA May Halt Funding to States Over SNAP Data Release

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced during a cabinet meeting last week that states refusing to release data on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program beneficiaries risk losing their federal administrative funds, as reported by NBC News. Her remarks were directed at 21 states that have yet to provide the agency with specific personally identifiable information and data about SNAP beneficiaries.

In May and July, the department issued guidance requiring states and their third-party payment processors to transmit personally identifiable information about SNAP beneficiaries. The directive specifically requires the submission of the names of all household members, dates of birth, social security numbers, home addresses and information used to determine eligibility and benefit amounts. The requested information covers a five-year period, dating back to Jan. 1, 2020. An additional document released by the USDA in July indicates that the agency is seeking information regarding citizenship and immigration status of SNAP recipients, as well as their employment and education history.

On July 28, 20 states and the District of Columbia filed a suit, arguing that the data sharing mandate violates federal privacy laws and is intended to support the administration's immigration enforcement efforts. The department maintains that the information is needed to address fraud. On Oct. 15, the court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the USDA from withholding SNAP funding to states that have not complied. It is unclear currently whether the USDA has the legal authority to withhold funding while the preliminary injunction is in place.

According to Newsweek, the USDA reported that the following 28 states have complied with the guidance: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virgina, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Federal Funding for Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Released to States

The Department of Health and Human Services released LIHEAP funding to states for fiscal year 2026 and an additional $100 million from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act on Nov 28. LIHEAP provides about $4 billion in block grants to states to help 6 million low-income families and individuals pay for heating and cooling their homes. The federal government typically provides states with 90% of their LIHEAP funds for the year in early November, but the release of funds was delayed due to the government shutdown. See state LIHEAP allocations here.

CMS Repeals Minimum Nurse Staffing Standards for Long Term Care Facilities

On Dec. 2, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that repeals the minimum nurse staffing provisions that were established in a 2024 final rule for long-term care facilities participating in Medicare and Medicaid. The existing federal standard that predates the final rule and that requires long-term care facilities to provide a registered nurse onsite for at least eight hours per day, seven days a week, remains in effect. Additional provisions outlined in the 2024 final rule also continue to apply.

The 2024 final rule had imposed several new mandates for nursing facilities, including a requirement to provide a registered nurse onsite 24 hours a day, along with a minimum of 3.48 hours of nursing care per resident per day. Of these hours, at least 0.55 hours were to be provided by a registered nurse and 2.45 hours by a nurse aide. With the enactment of the interim rule on Feb. 2, 2026, these specific staffing provisions will be rolled back. Other components of the 2024 rule will remain in effect, including the facility assessment provision and Medicaid payment transparency reporting requirements.

The interim rule follows various efforts to reverse the staffing provisions, including successful litigation initiated by provider groups concerned about compliance amid ongoing health workforce shortages and the significant financial costs associated with the mandates. Additionally, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act included a provision that suspended implementation of the nurse staffing provisions until 2034.

Public comments that will inform future rulemaking in this area are due by Feb. 2, 2026. (Follow the "Submit a comment" instructions).

Treasury Releases Request for Comment on Federal Tax Credit Scholarship

The tax credit was established by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and allow individuals to receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit of up to $1,700 for donations to qualifying scholarship granting organizations, and states have the option of whether to participate in the program. The credit goes into effect in 2027.

As part of the request, the department is seeking information related to state oversight of SGOs, requirements for SGOs, and similar existing tax credits in states, among other topics. Comments are due by Dec. 26.

The request also previews forthcoming guidance and regulations on the program. The document suggests that regulation and guidance will address timing for states to opt into the program and submit their list of SGOs as well as what information states would have to certify about the SGOs on their list. The document also suggests that regulations will not allow states to create additional criteria for SGOs beyond the statutory requirements but would not prohibit SGOs from including their own additional criteria for scholarship recipients. Read the request for comment.

Treasury Updates SLFRF Reporting Requirements

The U.S. Department of Treasury released an updated report user guide in late October highlighting new guidance to states and local governments on how to report projects and expenditures funded by Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. While new award obligations ended on Dec. 31, 2024, states have until Dec. 31, 2026, to fully spend the funds provided for those prior obligations.

The department's updated requirements make several notable changes, including that the collection of Recovery Plans will end after the July 2025 reporting period. The department will not collect Recovery Plans in 2026 or 2027. The guidelines also change the threshold amount for Single Audit and Alternative Compliance Examination Engagement to only reflect $1 million for fiscal years ending on or after Oct. 1, 2024. The report also updates program income breakouts, among other items.

The department has released several final and interim rules since the American Rescue and Recovery Act of 2021 created the SLFRF program. Please visit the Department's page on State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to view these documents and the updated Compliance and Reporting Guidance.

EPA Proposes Regulations Limiting the Clean Water Act

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new regulation that would decrease the number of streams and wetlands included under federal water pollution protections in response to the 2023 Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency decision. Potential exclusions now include groundwater, prior converted cropland, ditches, and relatively permanent waterways and wetlands. Additionally, the regulation is intended to ease regulatory processes on farmers, businesses, manufacturers, home builders and property owners. Read ABC's reporting.

Department of the Interior Amends Endangered Species Act

The Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced rules to restore the Endangered Species Act to its 2020 framework. This rule would reinstate language on listing and de-listing species, designating critical habitats, and establish clear definitions of "effects of the action" and "environmental baseline." The rule would also allow agencies to consider economic and national security impacts in determining protections and eliminate blanket rule protections for species listed as threatened rather than endangered. Read the announcement.

Supreme Court Updates

Supreme Court Allows Texas to Use Redistricting Map

In an unsigned order, the Supreme Court granted a stay in the case of Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, which will allow the Texas legislature's new congressional map, that favors Republicans, to be used in the 2026 midterm elections. The court reversed the lower court's ruling that held the new map was unconstitutional because it was racially motivated. The Supreme Court held that the lower court committed two errors: It did not honor the presumption of legislative good faith and did not make an "adverse inference" against the respondents despite that they did not produce an alternative map. The Supreme Court also held that the lower court "improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections." Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that, "this Court's stay ensures that many Texas citizens, for no good reason, will be placed in electoral districts because of their race. And that result, as this Court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution." Twenty-two states filed an amicus brief in support of Texas, arguing that the lower court intruded on Texas's "sovereign and most vital right to redistrict," and that the map was not racially motivated, but motivated by partisan considerations. Read the ruling on SCOTUSblog.

SCOTUS to Decide Religious Freedom Case

After hearing oral arguments last week in Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, the court will decide whether a person can seek prospective relief from a law and challenge that law as unconstitutional under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when they were previously convicted of violating that same law.

Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who likes to preach in public. He uses signs and loudspeakers and frequents places with high pedestrian traffic such as the Brandon, Miss. amphitheater owned by the city of Brandon. He frequented this amphitheater several times in 2018 and 2019. In 2019, the city passed an ordinance restricting "protests" or "demonstrations" to a designated area during designated times prior to and after a live event. The ordinance also placed sign and loudspeaker restrictions "regardless of the content and/or expression" of the protest. Olivier went to the amphitheater in 2021, the police redirected him to the protest area, and he complied, but only briefly. The police then charged him with violating the ordinance. Olivier pleaded no contest to the charge and received a minor sentence.

After his conviction, Olivier challenged the validity of the ordinance under § 1983 claiming its provisions pertaining to protestors violated the First Amendment. He sought damages and moved for a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent the city from enforcing the ordinance. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals relied on Heck v. Humphrey (1994), which held that a person cannot bring a §1983 civil rights suit to challenge a law that would suggest their prior criminal conviction was invalid, and concluded that Olivier's claim was similarly barred. During oral argument, the justices primarily focused on the applicability of Heck v. Humphrey to the current case and what the implications of a ruling in favor of Olivier or the City would be. The Supreme Court will issue its opinion before the end of June 2026. Read the SCOTUSblog coverage.

Urias-Orellana v. Bondi Tests Deference to Immigration Officials in Asylum Cases

The court heard arguments in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, a case presenting the question of whether appellate courts must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that an asylum seeker did not experience persecution in their country of origin. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, asylum seekers can ask a federal court of appeals to review their case if the Board of Immigration Appeals denies their asylum claim. Generally, appellate courts defer to the lower court on questions of fact and only overturn a finding of fact if it is clearly erroneous. On questions of law, an appellate court will review the case de novo, or from scratch. Urias-Orellana argued that the determinations of persecution made by the BIA are findings of law, not fact, allowing appellate courts to determine if the board's decision about whether an asylum seeker's experience meets the persecution standard for an asylum claim. The federal government argued the persecution determination is a question of fact that appellate courts are ill equipped to handle and should be deferred to unless clearly erroneous. The justices seemed sympathetic to the petitioner's argument but leaning towards the government's contention that the determination is a question of fact, as they peppered the petitioner with many more questions than the federal government. The court will issue its decision in the case later this session. Regardless of which party prevails, this case will clarify the role federal circuit courts have in the immigration system. Listen to the audio of the oral arguments are here.

Links