Washington, D.C. — Two federal judges have intervened in a deepening humanitarian crisis, ordering the Trump administration to immediately release billions in contingency funds to keep the nation’s largest anti-hunger program operational during an ongoing government shutdown. The rulings, delivered Friday, October 31, 2025, come just hours before the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, was set to cease payments for millions of Americans, threatening widespread food insecurity.
The judicial directives mark a significant legal setback for the administration, which had argued it lacked the authority to tap emergency reserves for SNAP benefits amidst the funding lapse. However, the courts found the administration’s interpretation erroneous, emphasizing the critical need to maintain a vital safety net for approximately 42 million low-income individuals.
Emergency Rulings Avert Immediate Catastrophe
The urgent legal action unfolded in federal courts in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. In Providence, U.S. District Judge John McConnell issued a temporary restraining order compelling the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to distribute contingency funds for SNAP. Concurrently, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts, presiding over a case brought by a coalition of 25 states and the District of Columbia, ruled that the government is legally required to access emergency funds to make at least partial payments. Judge Talwani gave the administration until Monday to report back on its plan to authorize benefits. She also indicated that her ruling would apply nationwide, ensuring a broader impact beyond the plaintiff states.
These rulings arrived on the eve of November 1, a critical date when the USDA had planned to freeze SNAP payments, citing a lack of appropriations due to the government shutdown, which commenced on October 1. The abrupt halt would have impacted roughly one in eight Americans who rely on the program for essential groceries. Despite the judicial intervention, immediate relief for all recipients remains uncertain, as state and contractor systems require several days to process and disburse benefits, meaning millions may still face delays. Reloading beneficiaries' debit cards can typically take one to two weeks.
Legal Showdown Over Contingency Funds
The core of the legal dispute centered on the interpretation of congressional intent regarding SNAP funding during a government shutdown. The Trump administration and the USDA had maintained that a $5.5 billion (or approximately $6 billion) contingency fund could not be legally utilized to cover SNAP benefits, reversing an earlier USDA plan that suggested such funds would be tapped. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins had previously indicated she would only use the fund for emergencies like natural disasters. The administration also contended that the monthly cost of SNAP, estimated between $8.5 billion and $9 billion, far exceeded the available contingency funds, making full payments impossible. President Donald Trump echoed this sentiment on social media, stating his government attorneys believed they lacked the legal authority to use specific monies for SNAP and that he had asked the courts for clarification.
However, the states and advocating organizations argued forcefully that not only was the administration permitted to use these funds, but it was legally obligated to do so. Judge Talwani explicitly rejected the government's stance, writing in her decision that the administration had "erred in concluding" that the USDA was prohibited from drawing on emergency reserves during a lapse in appropriations. She asserted that the government was "statutorily mandated" to use the contingency reserve when necessary and possessed the discretion to utilize other previously appropriated funds. This judicial interpretation underscored Congress's intent for the continuity of SNAP benefits, even if at a reduced rate, when appropriated funds proved insufficient.
SNAP: A Critical Lifeline Under Threat
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program stands as a cornerstone of the nation’s social safety net, providing crucial assistance to prevent hunger and food insecurity. It enables eligible low-income families to purchase food via reloadable debit cards. A typical family of four receives an average of $715 per month, equating to just under $6 per person per day. The program disproportionately serves vulnerable populations; in Colorado alone, approximately 330,000 households, totaling over 600,000 individuals, rely on SNAP benefits, with nearly half being children, 10% seniors, and 15% people with disabilities. The potential suspension of these benefits had sent states, food banks, and recipients into a scramble to secure food, with some states pledging to use their own funds to cover shortfalls, despite warnings from the federal government that they would not be reimbursed.
Uncertain Road Ahead for Millions
While the federal judges' rulings have provided a temporary reprieve, the path forward remains fraught with uncertainty. The immediate challenge lies in the logistical complexities of getting funds to recipients who were expecting a disruption. State attorneys general and governors who initiated the lawsuits lauded the rulings, emphasizing that no one should suffer from hunger due to political gridlock. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser stated, "The court's order makes clear that the USDA cannot ignore its legal duty to fund SNAP when Congress has made contingency funds available."
The Trump administration now faces a critical decision: comply with the judicial orders and release the funds, or pursue appeals, which could further delay benefits and prolong the uncertainty for millions of families. The judiciary's clear directive highlights the profound human stakes embedded within political disputes over federal funding, ensuring that basic necessities like food security remain protected even during governmental impasses. The rulings underscore the courts' role in upholding essential government functions and protecting vulnerable citizens when executive action faces legal challenge.
