BOSTON (BN24) — President Donald Trump’s administration cannot suspend food aid for millions of Americans during the ongoing government shutdown, two federal judges ruled Friday, ordering the government to use contingency funds to maintain Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
The dual rulings by judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island came in lawsuits seeking to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture from suspending SNAP benefits, known as food stamps, starting Saturday. The decisions potentially preserved food assistance for 42 million low-income Americans who depend on the monthly payments.
Both judges ordered the administration to report back Monday on compliance with their decisions. The USDA did not immediately respond to requests for comment, leaving uncertainty about whether benefits would be distributed on November 1 as scheduled.
The rulings emerged as Democrats and Republicans in Congress continue trading blame for the shutdown that began October 1, with SNAP benefits becoming a political flashpoint in the funding impasse.
SNAP benefits are available to Americans whose income falls below 130 percent of the federal poverty line, equivalent to $1,632 monthly for a one-person household or $2,215 for a two-person household in many areas. States administer the benefits on a day-to-day basis, with payments distributed monthly.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Providence, concluding a hearing in a lawsuit filed by cities, nonprofits and a union, determined that the administration’s decision not to tap $5.25 billion in contingency funds for November benefits was arbitrary.
“There is no doubt and it is beyond argument that irreparable harm will begin to occur if it hasn’t already occurred in the terror it has caused some people about the availability of funding for food, for their family,” McConnell stated during the hearing.
The judge ordered the agency to distribute emergency funds “as soon as possible,” adding that if the money proved insufficient, the agency should determine whether funds from a separate account containing approximately $23 billion could be utilized.
Minutes earlier, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston ruled that the administration was incorrect in claiming it was legally prohibited from using contingency funds to pay SNAP benefits during the shutdown. The Boston ruling came in a lawsuit brought by 25 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia.
Talwani, who like McConnell was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, concluded that “the suspension of SNAP payments was based on the erroneous conclusion that the contingency funds could not be used to ensure continuation of SNAP payments.”
The USDA has stated that insufficient funds exist to provide full benefits costing $8.5 billion to $9 billion monthly. The administration claimed the agency lacked authority to distribute payments until Congress passes spending legislation ending the government shutdown.
The USDA’s shutdown plan released last month indicated contingency funds were available to maintain SNAP benefits if Congress failed to enact spending legislation averting the October 1 funding lapse. However, the department updated its website last week stating no benefits would be issued November 1, declaring “the well has run dry” and prompting the lawsuits.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins Friday morning characterized arguments by Democrats in Congress and Democratic-led states that the USDA possessed funds for November SNAP benefits as “a lie.”
Rollins argued the contingency fund can only be used when money for the food aid program is appropriated, stating the agency intends to reserve the funds for natural disaster responses or other emergencies.
“It is a contingency fund that can only flow if the underlying appropriation is approved,” Rollins told reporters on Capitol Hill alongside House Speaker Mike Johnson.
During a Thursday hearing, Justice Department attorney Jason Altabet warned that partial payments, unprecedented in the program’s history, could prove difficult, noting that officials were “legitimately scared” about whether antiquated state systems could handle the distribution.
“The agency thinks it would be catastrophic,” Altabet said, raising concerns about the technical capacity to implement partial benefit payments.
Both McConnell and Talwani indicated the administration possessed the ability to fund SNAP benefits fully if it exercised discretion to tap additional funding sources to cover shortfalls.
The court decisions represent a significant legal setback for the Trump administration’s handling of the shutdown’s impact on social services. The rulings suggest judges found the administration’s interpretation of its funding authority too restrictive.
SNAP represents one of the nation’s largest anti-poverty programs, serving tens of millions of Americans including children, elderly individuals and people with disabilities. The monthly benefits help recipients purchase food at grocery stores and authorized retailers.
The potential suspension of benefits had created widespread alarm among anti-hunger advocates who warned that millions of families would face immediate food insecurity. Food banks and charitable organizations indicated they lacked capacity to serve the additional demand that would result from SNAP suspension.
The lawsuits reflected growing concern among state officials and advocacy organizations about the shutdown’s impact on vulnerable populations. Democratic-led states argued the administration possessed both legal authority and available funds to continue the program.
The judges’ orders requiring Monday reports on compliance suggest skepticism about the administration’s claims regarding funding limitations and legal constraints. The reporting requirement enables courts to monitor whether the government follows through on distributing benefits.
The technical challenges raised by the Justice Department attorney regarding state payment systems highlight the complexity of administering benefits during the shutdown. Many states rely on older computer systems that may not easily accommodate irregular payment schedules or amounts.
