Washington — Two federal judges on Friday said the Trump administration must tap into contingency funds to make payments for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during the government shutdown, ruling against the government in a pair of suits over the imminent benefits lapse. Roughly 42 million Americans rely on SNAP to help buy food.
In a case brought by a coalition of states in federal court in Massachusetts, Judge Indira Talwani ruled that the government is required by law to tap into the emergency money to make at least partial payments, and gave the administration until Monday to tell the court whether it planned to do so.
In Rhode Island, another federal judge granted a request for a temporary restraining order from a group of municipalities and nonprofits who sued to block the imminent funding freeze, according to attorneys for Democracy Forward, the group leading the suit. The ruling was made from the bench. An entry on the case docket said the court “orders the USDA to distribute contingency funds” and report back to the court by noon on Monday.
In her ruling, Talwani stopped short of ordering the administration to send SNAP payments on Saturday, but she rejected the government’s argument that the $5 billion contingency fund cannot be used to fund benefits during the lapse in appropriations.
“At core, Defendants’ conclusion that USDA is statutorily prohibited from funding SNAP because Congress has not enacted new appropriations for the current fiscal year is erroneous,” Talwani wrote. “To the contrary, Defendants are statutorily mandated to use the previously appropriated SNAP contingency reserve when necessary and also have discretion to use other previously appropriated funds.”
Talwani wrote that “the court will allow Defendants to consider whether they will authorize at least reduced SNAP benefits for November, and report back to the court no later than” Monday.
SNAP benefits provide eligible families with an average of $187 a month on a prepaid card for food purchases. Many families rely on those benefits as their main source of money for food. The Trump administration said money for the program was due to expire on Saturday because of the ongoing government shutdown, now on its 31st day.
The suit in Massachusetts was brought by two dozen states and the District of Columbia earlier this week. They asked the court to require the administration to tap into the emergency funds to keep SNAP money flowing to states, which administer food stamp programs. The states argued that the administration’s decision to cut off payments was unlawful and threatened to deprive millions of Americans of essential food benefits that help protect against food insecurity and hunger.
“Shutting off SNAP benefits will cause deterioration of public health and well-being,” state officials wrote in their lawsuit. “Ultimately, the States will bear costs associated with many of these harms. The loss of SNAP benefits leads to food insecurity, hunger, and malnutrition, which are associated with numerous negative health outcomes in children, such as poor concentration, decreased cognitive function, fatigue, depression, and behavioral problems.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP, said in a memo last week that “the well has run dry” and that November benefits would not be paid without an end to the shutdown. Administration officials and Republicans in Congress have said that the roughly $5 billion in the contingency fund could not legally be used to cover the shortfall.
“By law, the contingency fund can only flow when the underlying fund is flowing,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said at the Capitol on Friday.
Talwani, the judge in Massachusetts, rejected that argument in her ruling: “[U]nder Defendants’ statutory construction, the use of the separately appropriated contingent reserve to fund SNAP benefits is somehow predicated on Congress’s annual appropriation of funds to the SNAP program. Congress placed no such restrictions in the 2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act.”
She wrote that the suspension of SNAP payments to the states was “based on the erroneous conclusion that the Contingency Funds could not be used to ensure continuation of SNAP payments.”
“This court has now clarified that Defendants are required to use those Contingency Funds as necessary for the SNAP program,” the judge wrote. “And while these contingency funds reportedly are insufficient to cover the entire cost of SNAP for November, Defendants also may supplement the Contingency Funds by authorizing a transfer of additional funds … to avoid any reductions.”
