BOSTON — Two federal judges ruled almost simultaneously Friday that President Donald Trump’s administration must continue funding SNAP, the nation’s largest food aid program, using contingency funds during the government shutdown.
Judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island gave the administration the option of partially or fully funding the program by November. That also brings uncertainty about what will happen next and will delay payments for many beneficiaries, whose cards are typically reloaded at the beginning of the month.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) planned to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program starting November 1, arguing that it could no longer continue funding it due to the shutdown. The program helps one in eight Americans, is a key piece of the country’s social safety net and costs about $8 billion a month nationally.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota and a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee that oversees the food aid program, said Friday’s rulings by judges nominated to the court by former President Barack Obama confirm what Democrats have been saying: “The administration is choosing not to feed Americans in need, despite knowing it is legally obligated to do so.”
The judges agree that contingency resources should be used
State attorneys or Democratic governors in 25 states, as well as the District of Columbia, challenged the plan to pause the program, arguing that the administration has a legal obligation to keep it running in their jurisdictions.
The federal administration says it is not allowed to use a contingency fund with about $5 billion for the program, and it reversed an Agriculture Department plan from before the shutdown that said money would be used to keep SNAP running. Democratic officials say that money not only can, but should be used. They also said there is another separate fund with around $23 billion available for the cause.
In a case brought by cities and nonprofits, federal Judge John J. McConnell ruled in Providence, Rhode Island, that the program must be funded using at least contingency funds, and called for an update on progress by Monday.
In addition to ordering the federal government to use emergency reserves to support SNAP benefits, McConnell ruled that all exemptions from previous work requirements must be honored. During the shutdown, the Department of Agriculture has ended waivers that exempted seniors, veterans and others from work requirements.
There were similar elements in the Boston case, where federal Judge Indira Talwani ruled in a written opinion that the USDA must pay for SNAP, calling the suspension “unlawful.” He ordered the federal government to tell the court by Monday whether they will use contingency funds to provide reduced SNAP benefits in November or fully fund the program “using both contingency funds and additional available funds.”
“Defendants’ suspension of SNAP payments was based on the erroneous conclusion that Contingency Funds could not be used to ensure the continuation of SNAP payments,” the judge wrote. “This court has now clarified that defendants are obligated to use those Contingency Funds as necessary for the SNAP program.”
After the ruling, it was unclear how quickly the debit cards that beneficiaries use to buy food could be reloaded. That process often takes one to two weeks.
The administration did not immediately say whether it will appeal the rulings.
States, food banks and SNAP recipients have been preparing for an abrupt change in how low-income people can get food. Advocates and beneficiaries say stopping food aid would force people to choose between buying food and paying other bills.
Most states have announced more, or faster, funding for food banks or novel ways to load at least some benefits onto the debit cards used in the program.
Across the United States, advocates who had been warning for weeks about the imminent cutoff of SNAP benefits breathed a small sigh of relief Friday as the rulings were issued, although they acknowledged that the victory is temporary and possibly incomplete.
“Thousands of nonprofit food banks, pantries and other organizations across the country can avoid the impossible burden that would have resulted if SNAP benefits had stopped,” said Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, one of the plaintiffs in the Rhode Island case.
Uncertainty about the possibility of fewer benefits
Cynthia Kirkhart, CEO of the Facing Hunger Food Bank in Huntington, West Virginia, said her organization and the pantries it serves in Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia will keep their overtime hours this weekend, knowing that people whose subsidies usually arrive at the beginning of the month won’t see them.
“What we know, unless the administration is magical, is that nothing is going to happen tomorrow,” he said.
Kristle Johnson, a 32-year-old full-time nursing student and mother of three in Florida, is worried about the possibility of less help coming.
Despite buying meat in bulk, carefully planning meals and not buying junk food, he said the $994 monthly aid does not cover food for the entire month.
“Now I have to deal with someone who wants to get rid of everything I have to keep my family afloat until I can get better,” Johnson said of Trump.
The ruling does not resolve partisan differences
At a news conference in Washington on Friday, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, whose department administers SNAP, said the contingency funds in question will not long cover the cost of the food support program. Speaking at a news conference alongside House Speaker Mike Johnson on Capitol Hill, she blamed Democrats for refusing to end their filibuster in the Senate and reach a budget deal with Republicans.
An effort this week to maintain SNAP funding during the government shutdown failed in Congress.
To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a family of four’s net income after certain expenses cannot exceed the federal poverty line, which is about $31,000 a year. Last year, the program provided assistance to 41 million people, almost two-thirds of whom were families with children.
“The court’s decision protects millions of families, seniors and veterans from being used as leverage in a political fight and upholds the principle that no one in America should go hungry,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said of the Rhode Island decision.
