Federal judge rules Trump administration’s SNAP benefits cut ‘likely unlawful,’ orders US Department of Agriculture to explore emergency funding

A federal judge in Massachusetts has ruled that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to 42 million Americans announced by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) amid the ongoing government shutdown are likely unlawful, though she stopped short of ordering immediate, full relief.

In a 15-page ruling, US District Judge Indira Talwani of Boston ordered the Department of Agriculture to provide a report by Monday detailing whether it could issue reduced SNAP benefits using funds reserved for natural disasters, or full SNAP benefits by tapping into both emergency funds and other available resources.

Leaders on Tuesday from 25 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against the USDA after the agency warned that SNAP benefits, commonly known as food stamps, had “run dry” amid the ongoing government shutdown.


The weekend will see the first interruption of federal SNAP funding in six decades, with the states contending that the Trump administration’s actions violate the Food and Nutrition Act, which mandates that “assistance under this program shall be furnished to all eligible households.”

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told reporters that the administration could not tap the contingency fund, even if it wished to do so.

“There is a contingency fund at USDA, but that contingency fund, by the way, doesn’t even cover, I think, half of the $9.2 billion that would be required for November SNAP,” she said. “It is only allowed to flow if the underlying program is funded. If Hurricane Melissa or one of the hurricanes hits, that’s the contingency fund that we would use to send more money into the vulnerable communities that are harmed by a specific event, like a hurricane, but it is a contingency fund that can only flow if the underlying appropriation is approved.”

The judge also directed the administration to explore whether other federal funds could be used to maintain the program if Congress failed to pass a funding bill.