Federal judges, in two separate cases on Friday, ordered the Trump administration to use contingency funds to issue SNAP benefits as the benefits are set to run out on Saturday, given the lapse in appropriations.
We're one month into the Schumer Shutdown, and SNAP benefits (food stamps) have become the political football du jour.
There's a super-easy fix to this, of course: The Democrats could quit worrying so much about "leverage," and just vote to reopen the government. Instead, they decided to, yet again, run to court over it. On Tuesday, 25 states plus the District of Columbia filed suit in (where else?) Massachusetts, asserting, "on information and belief," that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) "has funds available to it that are sufficient to fund all, or at least a substantial portion, of November SNAP benefits." The states essentially asked the court to rule that the USDA can't suspend SNAP benefits despite the lapse in appropriations and order the USDA to pay benefits out of its contingency reserve.
The case was randomly (cough) assigned to Judge Indira Talwani — she of "Congress can't defund Planned Parenthood" fame — and a hearing was set for Thursday morning on the plaintiff states' motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
SEE ALSO: Things Just Got Even Crazier With the Judge Who Blocked Congress From Defunding Planned Parenthood
Appeals Court Tosses Ridiculous Ruling That Kept Money Flowing to Planned Parenthood
The parties presented their respective arguments at the hearing, and Judge Talwani took the matter under advisement.
The crux of USDA's position is set forth in the introduction to its memorandum in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for a TRO. The introduction runs for about two-and-a-half pages, so I will include an excerpt, rather than pasting it in its entirety here, but it's worth the read:
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) is a critical program that, through regular allotments and extraordinary disaster disbursements (the “D-SNAP program”), helps to improve food security for millions of Americans. At its regular level, SNAP requires approximately $8.5 to 9 billion dollars each month. Unfortunately, the ongoing lapse in appropriations has left SNAP with no appropriated funds in its annual allotments account. As a consequence of this never-before-seen circumstance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) was forced to suspend upcoming November benefits.
In their proposed order, Plaintiffs appear to ask the Court to order USDA to unsuspend allotments and let the system run with full benefits amounts (i.e., deposit full amounts on beneficiaries’ SNAP cards) no matter the absence of funds for such benefits. But that is no option at all. That would be a blatant violation of the Antideficiency Act, a criminal statute that forbids the United States from making such an obligation without an appropriation.
In their brief, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should force USDA to deplete its long-term emergency fund, currently containing around $5.25 billion, to provide SNAP benefits for November. But Congress has not appropriated any SNAP funding for fiscal year 2026. And depletion of the long-term emergency fund would eliminate money for the D-SNAP program over the coming years, a program that provides critical support in the event of natural disasters and other uncontrollable catastrophes. Even assuming USDA had discretion to reallocate these funds, the question of how to allocate limited funds among multiple crucial safety-net programs, when there are insufficient funds, is one that the agency is empowered to make—not a federal court, and certainly not Plaintiffs.
...
All told, Defendants understand that the lack of SNAP funds has created a difficult situation for millions of Americans. But as a matter of both law and practical consequence, it is not a problem that this Court can solve through the remedy that Plaintiffs here seek.
On Friday, Talwani issued a memorandum and order that keeps the motion for TRO under advisement but nevertheless compels the Trump administration to jump through certain hoops:
No later than Monday, November 3, 2025, Defendants shall advise the court whether they will authorize at least reduced SNAP benefits for November and, if so, their timeline for determining whether to authorize only reduced SNAP benefits using the Contingency Funds or to authorize full SNAP benefits using both the Contingency Funds and additional available funds.
According to Talwani's reading of things, the fact that Congress, in the 2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act, separately appropriated $6 billion to the SNAP program “to remain available through September 30, 2026” and “be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations,” the government is obligated to use this contingent reserve. In her view, "the statutory scheme does not contemplate an outright suspension of the program while some funds are available."
'Trump Broke the Law to Pay the Troops' Is the Hot, New Democrat Plan to Win Shutdown Fight
Meanwhile, in Rhode Island, District Court Judge John McConnell Jr. issued his own ruling Friday afternoon in a similar case filed by cities and nonprofits.
In Providence, Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell ruled from the bench in a case filed by cities and nonprofits that the program must be funded using at least the contingency funds, and he asked for an update on progress by Monday.
As of this writing, the administration has not filed an appeal in either case nor issued a statement, but RedState will continue to follow these cases and report on any developments as warranted.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member