A federal judge in Massachusetts has kept SNAP from falling off a cliff during the government shutdown. Judge Indira Talwani’s ruling compelled the USDA to allocate emergency funds to reinstate the program, which provides a maximum of just under $300/month for a single person to purchase groceries. However, total benefits average around $6 per day per person, or approximately $190/month.
In response, on Monday, November 3, the Trump administration agreed to fund some SNAP benefits during the shutdown.
A SNAP Primer
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the formal name for what is sometimes still referred to as food stamps. In many ways, it’s the backbone of the federal safety net for low-income households in the United States. Every month, millions rely on SNAP’s Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards — debit cards strictly for groceries — to keep food on the table. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funds and oversees the program, it’s state agencies that do the heavy lifting: processing applications, determining eligibility, calculating benefits, and ensuring the funds reach families who need them.
Here’s the critical legal underpinning: SNAP is an “appropriated entitlement,” set out in the Food and Nutrition Act. What does that mean in practice? Federal law says benefits “shall be furnished to all eligible households.” This makes SNAP not just a political promise, but a legal right for those who qualify, much like Medicaid. As long as Congress provides the money, USDA must pay out benefits to every certified household. If the money runs short, USDA isn’t allowed to simply shut off the tap; it can only reduce benefits, not suspend them entirely. That safeguard is written into the law to prevent sudden, catastrophic interruptions.
How SNAP Gets Its Funding
How does the money flow? SNAP’s funding mechanism is a blend of annual and multi-year federal appropriations. Each year, Congress sets aside about $8.6 billion per month to cover both SNAP benefits and the administrative costs for states. For instance, in Fiscal Year 2025, the Consolidated Appropriations Act outlined both regular funding and a special contingency reserve.
Why the contingency reserve? Congress knows that government shutdowns and budget fights happen. To prevent families from going hungry during those periods, lawmakers have set up multi-year contingency funds for SNAP. There is $6 billion available through September 2026 to be tapped “in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations.” In normal times, these reserves are a backstop. In crisis, they’re supposed to be a lifeline. But as recent litigation has shown, USDA’s discretion in accessing these funds is not always clear-cut.
There’s another, lesser-known funding source: Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935. Section 32 is a permanent appropriation: 30% of customs receipts from imports are set aside by Congress and distributed by USDA for a range of nutrition programs. These funds support initiatives like child nutrition and the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, and can total tens of billions of dollars. Occasionally, in emergencies or when appropriations lapse, USDA has used its discretionary authority under 7 U.S.C. 2257 to keep these core nutrition programs afloat.
The Shutdown Showdown
Fast forward to the fall of 2025, and the cracks in the system began to show. On September 30, the fiscal year ended, and with it, SNAP’s regular appropriations lapsed. USDA responded by posting a “Lapse of Funding Plan,” signaling that contingency funds could be used to keep SNAP running during a shutdown.
The very next day, the federal government entered shutdown mode, with no appropriations for the new fiscal year. USDA assured states that October benefits would go out as planned, and told them to keep operating under existing rules. For a while, business continued as usual: states processed applications, prepared November benefit files, and kept the machinery running.
But things escalated quickly. On October 10, USDA warned state agencies that if the shutdown dragged on, there wouldn’t be enough money to pay November benefits for roughly 42 million Americans. States were told to freeze their November issuance files and hold off on transmitting them to EBT vendors — a move that effectively put November benefits on ice.
Concern and confusion spread. By October 24, Attorneys General from several states demanded answers from USDA about contingency funds and plans for November. USDA’s response? A formal announcement suspending all November SNAP benefits until Congress came through with funding. States were ordered to notify households and scale back administrative expenses to essentials only. USDA also circulated a memo arguing that contingency funds weren’t available for November, and warned that using Section 32 funds could jeopardize other nutrition programs.
As October wound down, the situation grew even more fraught. USDA quietly removed its “Lapse of Funding Plan” from its website and posted a banner blaming Senate Democrats for the SNAP benefit stoppage. For millions of families, the uncertainty was palpable.
States Challenge the USDA
On October 28, a coalition of states led by Massachusetts filed a complaint in federal court, arguing that USDA’s suspension of November SNAP benefits was unlawful and arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act. The suit claimed USDA had access to sufficient contingency and Section 32 funds, and that the suspension was causing irreparable harm to states and their residents. The relief sought included declarations voiding USDA’s directives, an injunction against enforcement, and a temporary restraining order to prevent the suspension and require immediate payment of November benefits.
The USDA and other federal defendants countered that the states lacked standing and that vacating the suspension would not remedy any harm, as no appropriated funds remained. USDA contended it could not lawfully obligate funds it did not possess under the Antideficiency Act, and asserted that tapping contingency or Section 32 funds would undermine disaster SNAP and child nutrition programs. The agency also maintained its suspension decision was discretionary, not subject to review under the APA, and partial payments would be operationally chaotic; any relief should require states to post bond and be stayed on appeal.
SNAP Survives — For Now
For SNAP beneficiaries, Judge Indira Talwani of the federal court in Massachusetts came to the rescue. First, she ruled that the plaintiff states had standing, as they faced real operational and fiscal harms.
The judge then determined the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Administrative Procedure Act claims, concluding that the USDA’s suspension of SNAP benefits was based on a misreading of the law. She held that Congress intended the $6 billion in contingency funds to be used to continue SNAP operations in the absence of regular appropriations, and these funds must be used before suspending benefits. If available funds are insufficient, USDA must reduce benefits proportionally rather than suspend them entirely, and the agency could also use Section 32 funds at its discretion.
Judge Talwani found that irreparable harm to states and residents could be avoided if USDA used these funding options. She ordered the USDA to report by November 3 on whether it would authorize at least reduced November SNAP benefits, keeping the request for a temporary restraining order under advisement until that response.
What’s Next?
At the Monday deadline, the Trump administration said it plans to partially issue November SNAP benefits. The Trump administration stated that $4.65 billion is available for November, approximately half of the usual benefit amount. It’s not clear at this time what that will mean for SNAP benefit recipients. The money is coming from the USDA’s contingency fund.
Nonetheless, the decision reaffirms that SNAP is a mandatory entitlement subject to available appropriations, that contingency reserves exist to prevent disruptions, and that suspension is only lawful if no funds remain. It underlines that judicial review was warranted and requires USDA to reconsider all available options before denying benefits. Judge Talwani even acknowledged the extraordinary impact on state operations and public wellbeing. If nothing else, American families will have at least some food assistance through their Thanksgiving dinners.
Related Resources
- A Quick and Clear Guide to Upcoming Medicaid Changes (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
- The 'Junk Food Ban' and Other Changes to SNAP to Be Aware Of (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
- Justice Unpaid is ‘Justice Delayed’ as Courts Face Government Shutdown (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
