Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Two federal judges have ruled that the Trump administration cannot suspend food assistance for millions of Americans amid the ongoing government shutdown. The rulings, issued in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to use available contingency funds to continue payments for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps.
The decisions came on October 31, following separate lawsuits aimed at preventing the USDA from halting SNAP benefits beginning November 1. The legal challenges were brought by a coalition of Democratic-led states, cities, nonprofit organizations, and unions concerned about the shutdown’s effect on low-income families.
Both courts ordered the government to provide updates by October 27, explaining how it plans to comply with the rulings. The USDA has yet to issue an official statement.
SNAP supports households earning less than 130% of the federal poverty level — equivalent to $1,632 per month for a single person or $2,215 for two people in most regions. While states manage daily administration of the program, federal funds cover the cost of benefits.
Judges Rule Emergency Funds Must Be Used
The USDA previously warned it lacked sufficient resources to pay the roughly 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP, which costs between $8.5 billion and $9 billion monthly. Officials argued they could not legally issue payments until Congress approved a new spending bill to end the shutdown that began on October 1.
However, U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Providence disagreed, calling the administration’s refusal to use $5.25 billion in contingency reserves “arbitrary.” He said failing to act would cause “irreparable harm” by instilling fear and uncertainty in families dependent on food assistance. McConnell directed the USDA to release the funds “as soon as possible” and explore additional sources, including a separate account containing about $23 billion, if needed.
In Boston, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani reached a similar conclusion, stating the administration was mistaken in claiming that contingency funds could not be accessed. Her ruling came in a case filed by 25 Democratic-led states and Washington, D.C. Talwani, appointed by former President Barack Obama, noted that suspending SNAP benefits based on that interpretation was “legally incorrect.”
Administration Defends Its Decision
The USDA had initially stated that contingency reserves would be available if Congress failed to pass new funding. However, an updated notice last week said that benefits would stop on November 1 because “the well has run dry,” triggering the lawsuits.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins pushed back against Democratic leaders’ claims, calling their argument “a lie.” Rollins asserted that the contingency fund could only be used after Congress approved program appropriations, emphasizing that the reserves were meant for natural disasters or other emergencies, not routine benefits.
“It is a contingency fund that can only flow if the underlying appropriation is approved,” Rollins said at a Capitol Hill press briefing alongside House Speaker Mike Johnson.
During a hearing on October 30, Justice Department lawyer Jason Altabet cautioned that issuing partial payments could create significant challenges, given the outdated systems used by many states to distribute SNAP benefits. “The agency thinks it would be catastrophic,” he said.
Nonetheless, both judges concluded that the administration had the discretion and financial capacity to continue full payments by utilizing alternative funding sources.
