In a significant legal decision amid the ongoing government shutdown, two federal judges ruled that the Trump administration is prohibited from suspending the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, forcing the administration to utilize contingency funds to maintain food aid to millions of Americans.
Background: SNAP and the Government Shutdown
SNAP, commonly known as food stamps, provides vital monthly food assistance to approximately 42 million low-income Americans, equating to one in every eight citizens. The program is federally funded yet administered by states, relying heavily on a steady flow of federal funds to distribute benefits via EBT cards for grocery purchases.
With the federal government shutdown commencing October 1, 2025, the USDA announced it would halt SNAP payments for November, citing the exhaustion of contingency funds typically tapped when Congress delays budget passage. These funds, amounting to about $5 billion, have historically been used to bridge funding gaps.
Judicial Intervention to Protect SNAP Benefits
Responding swiftly to lawsuits filed by coalitions of states, nonprofits, and local governments, federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island issued rulings on October 31, 2025, that dramatically altered the administration’s stance.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston declared the complete suspension of SNAP payments unlawful, emphasizing that the government must use available contingency funds to continue funding the program. Talwani set a Monday deadline for the administration to outline how it plans to maintain at least partial SNAP benefits.
Simultaneously, U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island ordered the USDA to distribute contingency funds “as soon as possible” to provide November benefits. He highlighted the irreparable harm the suspension would cause, stressing the “terror” and anxiety experienced by millions facing the loss of essential food support. McConnell also advised the administration to explore secondary federal fund sources if contingency funds prove insufficient.
Trump Administration’s Response and Legal Challenges
The Trump administration expressed uncertainty over the legality of accessing contingency funds for SNAP payments during the shutdown, stating via President Trump’s Truth Social account that government lawyers need court clarification on whether such funding is permissible. Trump reiterated his intention to ensure Americans do not go hungry but blamed congressional Democrats for the shutdown and funding crisis, demanding they reopen the government.
Legal filings from the Department of Justice sought clarity on the orders to avoid operational collapse, navigating a complex legal landscape after conflicting court instructions emerged closely together.
Broader Impact and Significance
The judges’ rulings underscore the critical importance of SNAP in safeguarding millions of Americans’ access to food. Suspension of benefits threatens widespread food insecurity, forcing food banks and aid organizations to confront surging demand amid constrained resources.
Attorneys representing states and community organizations warned that halting SNAP would cause “irreparable harm,” not just to families but also to small businesses reliant on SNAP-related economic activity. The courts’ decisions to compel funding reflect recognition that procedural government funding gaps cannot be leveraged as justification to end vital social programs abruptly.
The Path Forward
As of November 1, 2025, the USDA was ordered to resume SNAP benefit distributions using contingency funds and to inform the court of its funding plan imminently. Discussions continue regarding the precise funding mechanisms and the administration’s compliance timeline, with ongoing political negotiations affecting the overall federal budget environment.
The legal victories for SNAP recipients demonstrate judicial willingness to check executive decisions that threaten social welfare programs during political crises, ensuring continuity of essential services despite governmental gridlock.