Federal judges in two different courts ordered the Trump administration to keep Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits flowing during the government shutdown, providing immediate relief to millions facing a sudden cutoff. One order came from U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts and a separate bench ruling from U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island, both forcing actions before benefits scheduled for November 1 would lapse. The rulings sharpen the political fight over whether contingency disaster funds should be tapped for food aid or preserved for future emergencies.
Judge Talwani issued an emergency order requiring the administration to resume SNAP benefits and directed the government to tell the court by Monday, Nov. 3, how it intends to keep the program funded. The court found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on claims that suspending benefits would be unlawful, so immediate relief was warranted. That timetable forces a quick explanation of whether November benefits can be paid in full, in part, or must be covered by alternative means.
Shortly after the Talwani order, Judge McConnell in Rhode Island told the administration to use its emergency reserves to pay for food stamps “as soon as possible” next month. His direction came from the bench during an emergency hearing in Providence and left little room for delay. The two rulings together created a patchwork of judicial pressure pushing the USDA to act despite the shutdown.
A coalition of 25 Democratic governors and state attorneys general brought the Massachusetts lawsuit, accusing the Department of Agriculture of refusing to keep SNAP funded during the shutdown. The states warned that suspending aid would disproportionately harm low-income and vulnerable residents, and argued the agency has resources that could be used to prevent a lapse. “Worse still, USDA suspended SNAP benefits even though, on information and belief, it has funds available to it that are sufficient to fund all, or at least a substantial portion, of November SNAP benefits,” they wrote in their filing.
The administration had previously said it would not deploy the Agriculture Department’s roughly $5 billion contingency fund for November SNAP payments, preferring to reserve that money for natural disasters. Agency statements on the program website included the stark line, “[T]he well has run dry.” The USDA also posted that, “At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01,” language that helped drive states into court and judges to issue emergency relief.
During hearings, Judge Talwani signaled sympathy for the states’ position and the human stakes involved, asking pointedly, “It’s hard for me to understand how this isn’t an emergency when there’s no money and a lot of people need their SNAP benefits,” and noting that cutting benefits would be “devastating.” Those words framed the court’s willingness to step in where the political branches had stalled, and they underscored the real-world impact on families who rely on timely monthly allotments.
From a Republican point of view, there is a reasonable argument that contingency funds should remain available for disaster response rather than be redirected on short notice to cover program shortfalls caused by a shutdown. Still, the court orders demonstrate that the judicial branch will act quickly when benefits are at stake, which raises questions about separation of powers and the best way to protect vulnerable Americans without undercutting fiscal rules. The Justice Department has not yet said whether it will appeal either decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
This is a developing news story. Check back soon for updates.
