Judge Weighs Continuation of SNAP Food Aid Amid Shutdown/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal judge in Boston is considering whether the Trump administration can suspend SNAP food assistance during the ongoing government shutdown. Twenty-five Democratic-led states argue the government must use emergency funds to continue benefits for millions of low-income Americans. The ruling could determine whether 41 million people continue receiving essential food aid after November 1.
SNAP Funding Battle Quick Look
- U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani challenges administration’s stance on halting SNAP.
- The shutdown threatens to suspend food aid for over 41 million Americans.
- SNAP costs $8 billion per month and serves one in eight U.S. residents.
- 25 states and D.C. sued to compel use of contingency funds for aid.
- Government cites the Antideficiency Act, saying partial payments are illegal.
- Judge pressed officials on why reduced aid isn’t better than no aid.
- States warn suspension would harm children, small grocers, and public health.
- Decision expected to have nationwide impact if funds are ordered released.
- USDA says contingency funds cannot be used without congressional approval.
- Hearing underscores deep political and humanitarian strain of the shutdown.
Judge Weighs Whether SNAP Benefits Must Continue Despite Government Shutdown
BOSTON — A federal judge in Boston is weighing whether the Trump administration can legally halt Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments during the ongoing government shutdown—a move that could leave millions of Americans without access to critical food aid as early as November 1.
During a hearing on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani appeared skeptical of the administration’s claim that it must suspend the nation’s largest food assistance program due to lack of appropriated funds.
States Challenge Suspension of SNAP During Shutdown
The lawsuit, brought by 25 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, argues that the administration has both the legal authority and obligation to use emergency or contingency funds to continue disbursing SNAP benefits, even while the shutdown continues.
Talwani, an Obama appointee, challenged the government’s position in court, noting that eliminating benefits altogether is not the only option.
“If you don’t have money, you tighten your belt. You are not going to make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game someplace,” said Talwani during the hearing.
She indicated a ruling could come as soon as Thursday evening. While the plaintiffs requested relief only within their states, Talwani signaled that any decision she makes could apply nationwide.
SNAP Payments at Risk for Millions of Americans
SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, provides food assistance to more than 41 million Americans and costs roughly $8 billion per month. Recipients include low-income families, the elderly, and people with disabilities. According to the lawsuit, nearly two-thirds of beneficiaries are families with children.
Without court intervention or congressional action, the Department of Agriculture plans to halt SNAP disbursements beginning November 1. This would mark the first time in the program’s history that payments are suspended due to a federal funding lapse.
States, food banks, and nonprofits have already begun scrambling to mitigate the impact, with some governors considering using state funds to continue local programs temporarily.
Government Says Emergency Funds Cannot Be Used
The Trump administration contends that federal law, specifically the Antideficiency Act, prohibits the use of unappropriated funds for SNAP—even during emergencies. Although there is a $5 billion contingency fund, and an additional reserve of about $23 billion, the administration argues that these funds cannot be used without explicit congressional approval.
Government attorney Jason Altabet told the court that issuing reduced benefits using these funds would be both illegal and impractical.
“A partial payment would be a blatant violation of the Antideficiency Act,” Altabet argued, adding that making such changes would require recalculations and system adjustments that could take weeks to implement.
Judge Presses Government on Emergency Use of Funds
Judge Talwani pressed back on this position, asking why reduced benefits weren’t considered a better option than cutting them off entirely.
“It’s hard for me to understand that this is not an emergency, when there is no money and a lot of people are needing their SNAP benefits,” she said.
Talwani emphasized that while reduced benefits would still result in hardships, they would be less damaging than a complete shutdown of assistance.
States Warn of Broad Consequences
In legal filings, the plaintiff states argue that cutting off SNAP aid is not only illegal but also deeply harmful to public health and state budgets.
“With the suspension of SNAP benefits, the nutritional needs of millions of school-aged children in plaintiff states will not be met,” the complaint reads. “Hungry children have a harder time paying attention, behaving, and learning in school.”
The lawsuit also points to economic harm, particularly for small businesses and grocery stores that rely heavily on SNAP transactions. More than 100,000 retailers could be affected, particularly with the holiday season approaching.
Additionally, states warned that health care and social services costs could rise as vulnerable populations lose access to food.
Impact on SNAP Recipients
To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a family of four must earn a net income below approximately $31,000 per year. SNAP benefits are typically loaded onto electronic debit cards once a month, and any disruption to the system could leave recipients waiting weeks before receiving aid—even if the court rules in their favor.
Judge Talwani acknowledged these concerns, saying even a favorable ruling for the plaintiffs might result in reduced or delayed payments.
“Absent a 100% win for you, the benefits aren’t going to be there on Nov. 1,” she said.
Broader Political Implications
The hearing highlights the real-world consequences of the current political impasse in Washington. As the government shutdown stretches into another week, essential programs like SNAP are at increasing risk, and federal courts may become the last resort for states and vulnerable communities seeking relief.
Should Judge Talwani order the administration to release emergency funds for food aid, it would set a major precedent on how entitlement programs are treated during budget crises.
A decision is expected soon, but for millions of low-income Americans, the clock is ticking.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.