Twenty-five Democratic governors and attorneys general filed an emergency lawsuit Tuesday demanding the Trump administration release $9.2 billion in food stamp benefits for November, warning that 42 million Americans will lose SNAP assistance starting November 1 if the government shutdown continues.
The USDA says it won’t tap its $5 billion contingency fund to cover the benefits, instead reserving it for natural disasters. The agency’s website now simply states “the well has run dry” and “there will be no benefits issued November 01.”
But here’s the constitutional question that makes this lawsuit extraordinary: when Congress fails to appropriate money and the executive branch decides how to allocate limited funds during a shutdown, can courts force the President to prioritize certain spending over his own disaster preparedness judgment?
This isn’t just about food stamps – it’s about whether judicial orders can override executive discretion when the appropriations power completely breaks down.
At a Glance
- 25 states sued the Trump administration demanding release of $9.2 billion in November SNAP benefits
- USDA refuses to use its $5 billion contingency fund for food stamps, reserving it for natural disasters
- 42 million Americans receive SNAP benefits that will stop November 1 if shutdown continues
- Emergency hearing scheduled for Wednesday before Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts
- At stake: whether courts can order the executive branch to spend money Congress hasn’t appropriated during a shutdown
The USDA’s Decision and Its Consequences
The Trump administration announced Friday that the Agriculture Department would not use its roughly $5 billion contingency fund to cover November SNAP benefits. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said the agency is keeping that money on hand to respond to natural disasters instead.
The USDA’s website now carries a stark message: “The well has run dry. At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01.”
That decision affects approximately 42 million Americans who currently receive SNAP assistance – what used to be called food stamps. Without those benefits starting November 1, millions of low-income families will have no federal food assistance.
The states’ lawsuit argues this will cause immediate and severe harm: “Shutting off SNAP benefits will cause deterioration of public health and well-being. The loss of SNAP benefits leads to food insecurity, hunger, and malnutrition, which are associated with numerous negative health outcomes in children, such as poor concentration, decreased cognitive function, fatigue, depression, and behavioral problems.”
“Ultimately, states will bear costs associated with many of these harms.” – State coalition lawsuit
The Constitutional Authority Question
Here’s where this gets constitutionally complicated: Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution states “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” That’s called the Appropriations Clause, and it’s one of Congress’s most important checks on executive power.
Congress hasn’t appropriated money for fiscal year 2026. That’s why there’s a government shutdown. Without appropriations, the executive branch legally cannot spend money – except in limited circumstances where prior appropriations or permanent statutory authority exist.
SNAP benefits are typically funded through annual appropriations. The USDA also has a contingency fund – money that was previously appropriated and remains available for emergencies. The question is whether the executive branch has discretion over how to use that contingency fund, or whether courts can order them to spend it on SNAP benefits rather than reserving it for disasters.
The Trump administration’s position is that they have executive discretion to reserve contingency funds for natural disasters – fires, floods, hurricanes, agricultural emergencies. Using that money for ongoing SNAP benefits would leave nothing for disaster response.
The states’ position is that SNAP benefits are legally required, and the USDA has available funds that must be used to meet those legal obligations rather than held back for hypothetical future disasters.
When Congress fails to appropriate and the executive branch makes spending decisions with limited funds, can courts override those decisions and order different priorities?
The Separation of Powers Collision
This lawsuit creates a three-way constitutional conflict between all three branches of government:
Congress failed to exercise its appropriations power, creating the shutdown that makes SNAP funding unavailable.
The Executive Branch is exercising discretion over limited contingency funds, prioritizing disaster preparedness over ongoing SNAP benefits.
The Judiciary is being asked to order the executive branch to spend money differently than the President wants during a period when Congress hasn’t appropriated anything.
Each branch has constitutional arguments. Congress’s failure to appropriate is a valid exercise of its power – they’re not required to pass spending bills, even if the consequences are severe. The President’s discretion over executing laws and managing agencies is part of Article II executive power. And courts have authority to enforce statutory requirements and protect constitutional rights.
But when all three collide – Congress won’t appropriate, the President won’t spend available funds the way states want, and courts are asked to force executive spending decisions – nobody has clear constitutional authority to resolve the dispute.
The Emergency Hearing Wednesday
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani will hear from both parties during an emergency status hearing Wednesday. The states are asking her to immediately order the Trump administration to release a portion of USDA’s contingency funds to ensure SNAP benefits continue starting November 1.
That’s an extraordinary request – asking a federal judge to order the executive branch to spend specific money in a specific way during a government shutdown when Congress hasn’t appropriated funds. It’s essentially asking courts to substitute their judgment for executive discretion over spending priorities.
The states will argue that SNAP is legally required and that withholding benefits violates statutory obligations to provide food assistance to eligible recipients. They’ll point to the severe harm – children going hungry, families losing food security, public health deteriorating.
The Trump administration will argue that they have discretion over contingency funds, that reserving money for disasters is prudent emergency management, and that courts can’t force executive spending decisions during appropriations lapses.
Judge Talwani faces an impossible choice: either let 42 million Americans lose food assistance starting November 1, or order the executive branch to spend money in ways the President believes leaves the country unprepared for disasters.
The 25-State Coalition
The lawsuit was filed by attorneys general and governors from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
That’s an extraordinary coalition representing states with massive populations that depend on SNAP benefits. California alone has millions of SNAP recipients. New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan – these are large states with substantial low-income populations that will be immediately affected.
The coalition argument is that states will “bear costs associated with many of these harms” when federal food assistance disappears. Emergency rooms will see more malnutrition cases. Schools will have more hungry children affecting educational outcomes. State and local food banks will be overwhelmed. Crime might increase as desperate people resort to theft for food.
Those are real consequences that states will face, which gives them standing to sue – they have concrete injuries from federal policy decisions. But standing to sue doesn’t mean they’ll win on the merits of whether courts can force executive spending decisions.
What the Founders Would Say
Madison would be appalled by the entire situation. The appropriations power is supposed to be Congress’s strongest check on executive authority. When Congress can’t or won’t appropriate, that check disappears and the executive gains enormous discretion over spending – exactly what the Founders feared.
But Madison would also worry about courts ordering executive spending. The separation of powers assumes each branch stays in its lane – Congress appropriates, the President executes, and courts resolve disputes about law. When courts start dictating executive spending priorities, that’s judicial overreach into executive authority.
Hamilton would probably argue the President needs discretion over emergency funds during crises. He believed in energetic executive authority and would support the President’s judgment about reserving contingency funds for disasters rather than ongoing programs.
Jefferson would focus on the human cost – 42 million Americans losing food assistance. He’d probably argue that government’s primary purpose is protecting people’s welfare, and that technical arguments about appropriations and executive discretion shouldn’t override the basic duty to prevent mass starvation.
But none of them would recognize a world where the federal government provides food assistance to 42 million people, or where government shutdowns are routine political tactics, or where courts are asked to micromanage executive branch spending decisions during appropriations lapses.
The Precedent This Could Set
If Judge Talwani orders the USDA to release contingency funds for SNAP benefits, she’ll be setting a precedent that courts can override executive discretion over spending during shutdowns. That precedent could apply to any program where courts believe statutory obligations require continued funding despite appropriations lapses.
That might sound good if you support SNAP benefits. But it would fundamentally shift power from the executive branch to the judiciary. Every shutdown would become a series of lawsuits where different groups demand courts order continued funding for programs they care about. Judges would become appropriators, deciding which programs get funded and which don’t when Congress won’t.
Alternatively, if Judge Talwani sides with the Trump administration, she’ll be ruling that executive discretion over contingency funds can’t be overridden by courts even when millions of people face immediate harm. That precedent would give presidents enormous power during shutdowns to prioritize spending however they want, regardless of statutory obligations or humanitarian consequences.
Either way this case goes, it establishes new boundaries for executive power during appropriations breakdowns – and those boundaries will matter for every future shutdown.
The Political Blame Game
Democrats will argue this proves Republicans are willing to starve millions of Americans rather than compromise on the shutdown. Governor Gavin Newsom, launching California’s participation in the lawsuit, cited Scripture as evidence the government should feed the hungry and said “cruelty is the policy.”
Republicans will argue Democrats are forcing the SNAP crisis by refusing to pass a clean continuing resolution to fund the government. They’ll say if Democrats really cared about food assistance, they’d end the shutdown instead of suing.
Both arguments have political merit. Democrats did reject multiple GOP funding bills. Republicans do control all of government and could negotiate compromise. The shutdown is a mutual failure where both parties bear responsibility.
But the constitutional question isn’t about blame – it’s about what happens when the political branches deadlock so completely that judicial intervention becomes the only option to prevent mass harm. That’s a failure of the constitutional system regardless of which party deserves more blame politically.
The Constitutional Reality of System Breakdown
The Framers created a system of separated powers with checks and balances. They assumed friction would force compromise. They never imagined a scenario where 42 million Americans depend on monthly federal food assistance, where government shutdowns last for weeks, and where courts are asked to force executive spending when Congress won’t appropriate.
When that system breaks down this completely, there are no good constitutional answers. Congress has authority not to appropriate. The President has authority over executive spending decisions. Courts have limited authority to enforce statutory requirements. And 42 million Americans are caught in the middle.
Judge Talwani’s Wednesday hearing will determine whether judicial authority can override executive discretion when appropriations fail. Whatever she decides will be appealed, probably reaching higher courts quickly given the November 1 deadline.
But the deeper problem isn’t legal – it’s that our constitutional system for funding government has completely collapsed. When basic governance functions like feeding hungry Americans become impossible because political branches can’t compromise on anything, constitutional mechanics don’t matter anymore. The system simply isn’t working.
The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. It gives the President executive authority. It gives courts the power to say what the law is. But it doesn’t provide a mechanism for when all three branches fail simultaneously – when Congress won’t appropriate, the President won’t spend, and courts are asked to force decisions none of them have clear authority to make.
That’s where we are now: 42 million Americans losing food assistance starting November 1, not because any branch of government wants that outcome, but because the constitutional system for preventing it has broken down completely. And whether courts can fix what the political branches won’t is a question the Founders never imagined needing to answer.