The clock was just hours away from striking midnight on the first of the month, a deadline that threatened to plunge 42 million Americans into a food crisis. As the government shutdown dragged on, the nation’s food stamp program was set to go dark. In a last-minute, dramatic intervention, the third branch of our government has just stepped in.
In two separate but simultaneous rulings on Friday, federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island have ordered the Trump administration to continue funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The emergency orders provide immediate, near-term relief, blocking the benefits from expiring on November 1st and forcing the administration to find the money.
Why Was This Even a Question?
The conflict stems from the ongoing government shutdown, which has now entered its fifth week. While Congress failed to pass a new budget, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has access to a contingency fund of approximately $5 billion. A coalition of 25 Democratic-led states sued the administration, arguing that this contingency fund could and should be used to cover the nearly $9 billion needed for November’s SNAP benefits.
The Trump administration refused, arguing the funds needed to be preserved for natural disasters. The USDA’s website was updated with a blunt, cold message: “At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01… The well has run dry.”
A “Devastating” Choice and a Judge’s Rebuke
The state leaders argued in their lawsuit that suspending the aid would be “devastating” and would “cause deterioration of public health and well-being,” a position with which the courts clearly agreed.
In her order, Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts found that the states were likely to succeed on their claim that suspending the benefits is unlawful. She seemed to cut through the administration’s political justification, stating in court:
“It’s hard for me to understand how this isn’t an emergency when there’s no money and a lot of people need their SNAP benefits.”
In Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John McConnell was even more direct, ordering the administration from the bench to tap its emergency funds and pay the benefits “as soon as possible” next month.
Is Hunger Now a Political Bargaining Chip?
This legal showdown reveals a profound and dangerous new phase in our constitutional power struggles. It appears the administration was willing to use the mass hunger of 42 million people – including children, the elderly, and the disabled – as a political bargaining chip to force Democrats to cave on their shutdown demands.
The administration’s claim that it was reserving the $5 billion for other emergencies was a discretionary choice. The judges’ rulings are a powerful check on that discretion, a signal from the judiciary that it will not allow the executive branch to inflict such a massive and “devastating” humanitarian crisis when a clear, legal alternative exists.
How Did a Shutdown Become a Weapon?
This is not the first time SNAP benefits have been threatened in a shutdown, but it marks the first time in the program’s 60-year history that it has ever fully lapsed. For decades, the program was seen as a “third rail,” too vital to be cut.
The Antideficiency Act, a post-Civil War law, is what forces most of the government to close. But a shutdown itself is a modern political invention, a failure of Congress to execute its most basic Article I duty: the power of the purse. The courts are now being forced to clean up the mess created by the legislature’s dysfunction and the executive’s political gamesmanship.
What Happens Now?
The judges’ orders are a temporary, emergency fix, not a permanent solution. Judge Talwani has ordered the government to report back by Monday on how it plans to keep the program funded, whether in full or in part.
The Department of Justice has not yet said if it will appeal these rulings. This legal battle is far from over, but for now, two federal judges have stepped in to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, delivering a powerful rebuke to the administration’s political strategy.