Privacy Groups Sue HHS Over Expanded Access to Sensitive TANF Records
This article was originally published in PrivacySavvy. Read it here.
A new legal battle is putting federal access to welfare records under scrutiny. Privacy and immigrant rights organizations have sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), challenging the agency’s policy expanding access to welfare records from TANF.
Three organizations, including Make the Road States, Common Cause, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), filed the lawsuit. Democracy Forward and the National Center for Law and Economic Justice represent these organizations in the case.
The case is titled “Make the Road States v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.” The lawsuit was filed on August 3 in a federal court in New York. It aims to prevent the implementation of the HHS’s policy.
TANF, which means Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, is a federally funded program run by the states. It brings forth $16 billion every year to support low-income families with children. This money is for cash aid, child care, jobs, and other services. The controversy started with the issuance of a notice by the HHS on June 23.
What HHS changed
The notice expands the types of information that can be kept in HHS’s TANF records system. The records can include information reported by state TANF agencies. HHS also says it may obtain verification information from other HHS records and other government agencies or entities.
The notice specifically mentions the Homeland Security Department and the Social Security Administration as possible sources. If the policy takes effect, they’ll be sharing info such as names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth. The lawsuit adds that the system could have even more: income details, information about family connections, and specifics on a person’s immigration status.
HHS says the information can help the Administration for Children and Families check whether states are following TANF requirements and conducting proper program-integrity reviews. But the plaintiffs say the new policy goes much further than normal federal oversight.
They argue that HHS is creating a large pool of information about current and former TANF recipients and their household members. They also object to a new provision allowing information sharing with other agencies or entities that conduct program-integrity reviews.
Privacy laws at the center of the case
The lawsuit says HHS lacks legal authority for such broad data collection and sharing. The plaintiffs argue that the policy conflicts with the TANF statute, the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act.
They also accuse HHS of violating the Administrative Procedure Act. A major issue is the Privacy Act. The law requires agencies to provide public notice when they create or change systems that hold personal information. It also sets rules for how agencies can use and disclose that information.
Meanwhile, Texas is using its state consumer protection laws to challenge corporate privacy practices. In a separate lawsuit against WhatsApp, the state claims the company’s promises about end-to-end encryption are “blatantly inaccurate,” citing whistleblower reports that employees and contractors could access user communications.
The plaintiffs say HHS did not properly consider how the new uses fit with the reasons for collecting TANF data initially. They also say the agency moved too quickly. The lawsuit states that the data-collection changes took effect upon publishing the June 23 notice. Meanwhile, the new sharing provision was to begin August 11.
States are fighting the policy too
The nonprofit lawsuit is not the only legal challenge. A separate coalition of states also sued the Trump administration over the policy. Reuters reported that the states argue Congress gave states responsibility for checking TANF eligibility. They say HHS is now claiming powers that federal law does not provide.
The states also argue that the policy creates new conditions for federal funding without congressional approval. The administration says the policy is necessary to make sure states properly verify TANF recipients’ citizenship and immigration status before providing benefits.
That argument puts the two sides at odds over a basic question: how much control should Washington have over information gathered by state benefit agencies?
Advocates fear families will stop applying
Privacy is only part of the concern. The plaintiffs say broader data sharing could discourage people from seeking assistance they are eligible to receive.
That risk may be especially serious in mixed-status families. An individual could even apply for services on behalf of his/her child when other members of the household were undocumented immigrants.
Theo Oshiro, the co-executive director of Make the Road States, explained that his organization had already received complaints from people who feared that their relatives might face deportation once they applied for assistance.
The lawsuit makes a similar argument. It says fear and uncertainty could cause families to avoid essential support, potentially affecting children who depend on those benefits.
A broader data-sharing battle
The TANF dispute fits into a wider fight over federal access to state benefit records. Similar conflicts have emerged over SNAP and Medicaid data. Critics accuse the federal government of increasingly demanding huge amounts of data from states.
But those who support data sharing claim that having more access to data helps agencies detect mistakes and fraud. However, privacy advocates aren’t completely against data sharing. Their concern is how much information agencies collect, who can access it, and what happens after it leaves the original program.
That question becomes more important as government agencies adopt automated tools and artificial intelligence to review large datasets.
EPIC’s John Davisson warned that combining information from many sources could increase both privacy and security risks. He also raised concerns about automated systems making decisions about fraud or eligibility without giving people a clear explanation. For the plaintiffs, the TANF case is therefore about more than one federal database.
It asks whether the government can expand its access to sensitive state-held information simply because modern technology makes large-scale data collection easier. The courts will now decide whether HHS crossed that line.
