In a significant legal development, two federal judges have ruled that the Trump administration cannot suspend essential food aid that serves over 40 million low-income Americans during the ongoing US government shutdown. This decision was made on Friday by judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, stating that the government is required to utilize emergency funds to support the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly referred to as food stamps.
The SNAP program provides families with reloadable debit cards, enabling them to purchase necessary grocery items. However, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced this week that it would not distribute food assistance funds for November due to the shutdown, claiming that available funds have been exhausted. On average, a family of four receives approximately $715 (£540) per month through SNAP, which breaks down to just under $6 (£4.50) per day, per person.
States administer SNAP benefits using federal funds, which have been suspended since the government shutdown began on October 1. While several states have committed to using their own resources to cover any funding shortfalls, the federal government has cautioned that these states will not be reimbursed.
In response to the funding halt, half of the states in the US have initiated lawsuits against the Trump administration. Their goal is to compel the administration to utilize a $6 billion (£4.5 billion) emergency contingency fund allocated for SNAP. Massachusetts US District Judge Indira Talwani emphasized that the administration must access this funding to ensure that beneficiaries receive at least partial benefits for November. She has mandated the administration to provide a report by Monday regarding their plan to address the funding issue.
Judge Talwani noted that the states pursuing legal action are likely to prevail in court, asserting that Congress intended for SNAP benefits to be funded, even at a reduced rate, when appropriated funds are insufficient. She also criticized the Trump administration's interpretation that the USDA is legally barred from tapping into emergency reserves during a lapse in federal funding.
While the USDA has indicated that the emergency reserves are inadequate to cover the full benefits, which range from $8.5 billion to $9 billion each month, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has stated that she would only utilize these funds in cases of emergencies, such as natural disasters. Even if the administration accesses the contingency fund, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), it would only be able to support around 60% of beneficiaries for a single month.
Judge Talwani has requested that the administration clarify by Monday whether it will use the contingency fund to provide reduced benefits or if it will allocate full benefits for the month by reallocating funds from other programs, similar to the recent transfer of military research funds to support armed forces personnel.
In a separate case in Rhode Island, various US cities and NGOs have filed a lawsuit challenging what they describe as the unlawful suspension of the SNAP program. US District Judge John McConnell stated that it is indisputable that irreparable harm is occurring due to the fear surrounding the availability of food funding for families.
As the legal battles unfold, neither the White House nor the USDA has commented on the recent rulings. At a news conference before the judges issued their decisions, Secretary Rollins mentioned that the administration was exploring all options in response to potential court mandates.
The organization behind the Rhode Island lawsuit expressed that the ruling serves as a crucial lifeline for millions of families, seniors, and veterans who rely on SNAP for their nutritional needs. They emphasized that this decision reinforces a vital principle: no administration should weaponize hunger for political purposes.
The ongoing federal shutdown, which is approaching its second month, has led to a blame game between Republicans and Democrats, with no substantial progress made toward a resolution. As the situation evolves, the implications for low-income Americans relying on SNAP remain critical.
