Federal judges in two separate cases have ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to suspend the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during the ongoing government shutdown.
Key Details
- In Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge **Indira Talwani found that the administration’s interpretation of the law is “likely unlawful” for failing to provide benefits to eligible households.
- In Rhode Island, Judge **Jack McConnell ordered the USDA to use roughly $5.25 billion in contingency funds to avoid interruption, noting the harm to millions of beneficiaries would be “irreparable.”
- The USDA had argued its contingency funds were legally restricted to disaster-response uses and insufficient to cover full monthly benefits for the approximately 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP.
- The suits were brought by coalitions of 25 Democratic-led states plus the District of Columbia, along with cities and non-profits, challenging the halt of benefits as violating the Food and Nutrition Act’s mandate that assistance “shall be furnished to all eligible households.”
Significance & Impact
This ruling marks a significant legal intervention in how food-assistance programs are treated during funding impasses. If SNAP payments are suspended—even briefly—it would be the first such lapse in the program’s ~60-year history.
The decisions place pressure on the administration to act swiftly to maintain benefit flows, or provide clear guidance on how reductions will occur. States and recipients now face uncertainty, with delayed payments already anticipated.
What Comes Next
- The USDA must report by early next week whether and how it will release funds to continue benefits—either full or partial.
- States are prepared to monitor what happens with benefit loading, and whether an interruption occurs regardless of the court rulings.
- The broader debate over how federal programs operate during shutdowns has been sharpened by this ruling—raising implications for other entitlement programs and contingency-fund usage.
