Two judges rule Trump admin must keep SNAP benefits in place as shutdown drags on
In a significant ruling on Friday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani mandated that the Trump administration must continue funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) during the ongoing government shutdown, providing crucial relief to approximately 42 million Americans who rely on this vital aid. The emergency order came just hours before funding for SNAP was set to expire on November 1, marking a historic moment as it would have been the first time in 60 years that the program lapsed due to a government shutdown. Judge Talwani’s ruling followed a lawsuit filed by a coalition of 25 Democratic governors and state attorneys general, who argued that the suspension of SNAP benefits was unlawful and would disproportionately impact vulnerable populations across their states.
The urgency of the situation was underscored during court proceedings, where Judge Talwani expressed her concern over the dire consequences of halting SNAP benefits, stating, “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.” She instructed the government to provide details by November 3 on how it plans to maintain funding for the program. Simultaneously, a separate ruling from U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island echoed this sentiment, ordering the administration to utilize emergency funds to ensure the continuation of food stamp benefits. The plaintiffs in the case highlighted that the USDA had sufficient funds available, approximately $5 billion in a contingency fund, yet chose not to allocate these resources to SNAP, citing the need to reserve them for natural disasters instead.
The implications of these rulings are profound, as they aim to safeguard the health and well-being of millions of low-income Americans who depend on SNAP for their nutritional needs. The lawsuit emphasized that cutting off these benefits would lead to a deterioration of public health and exacerbate food insecurity among already vulnerable populations. With the USDA indicating that “the well has run dry” and no benefits would be issued on November 1, the situation remains critical. As the Justice Department deliberates on whether to appeal these rulings, the future of SNAP funding hangs in the balance, making this a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over government funding and social safety nets. Stay tuned for further updates on this developing story as it unfolds.
Related articles:
– Link 1
– Link 2
A federal judge on Friday ordered the
Trump administration
to continue to fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) during the ongoing government shutdown, delivering near-term relief to roughly 42 million Americans who received the aid just hours before the funding was slated to dry up.
The emergency order from U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani said the Trump administration must resume SNAP benefits, which were slated to expire Nov. 1, ruling that plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit are likely to succeed on their claims that the suspension of the benefits is unlawful. She ordered the government to provide the court no later than Monday, Nov. 3, with additional details on how it plans to keep the program funded, and whether the appropriated benefits must be distributed in full or in part.
Moments later, a separate federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration to continue paying for food stamps during the shutdown.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell said the administration must tap its emergency funds to pay for the SNAP benefits “as soon as possible” next month. He issued the emergency order from the bench Friday during an emergency court hearing in Providence.
STATES SUE TRUMP ADMIN OVER BILLIONS IN LOOMING CUTS TO SNAP, FOOD STAMPS
Talwani heard arguments Thursday from the Trump administration and from a coalition of 25 Democratic governors and state attorneys general, who sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture over its refusal to keep SNAP benefits funded during the ongoing government shutdown.
The benefits were slated to expire Nov. 1, marking the first time in 60 years that the program lapsed because of a government shutdown.
Talwani seemed sympathetic to the states’ arguments on Thursday. “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,” she said in court, vowing to rule as soon as possible on the matter.
She also agreed with the argument that the cuts to SNAP would be “devastating.”
State leaders said in the lawsuit that suspending the aid would disproportionately harm some tens of millions of vulnerable and low-income Americans in their states. “Because of USDA’s actions, SNAP benefits will be delayed for the first time since the program’s inception,” they said in the lawsuit, filed Tuesday.
“Worse still, USDA suspended SNAP benefits even though, on information and belief, it has funds available to it that are sufficient to fund all, or at least a substantial portion, of November SNAP benefits,” they added.
The
lawsuit
was filed several days after the Trump administration said last week that it would not use the Agriculture Department’s roughly $5 billion contingency fund to cover the food stamp benefits provided by SNAP for the month of November.
SENATE GOP DIVIDED AS MILLIONS RISK LOSING FOOD AID IN SHUTDOWN STANDOFF
Instead, officials said, the agency is planning to keep it on hand to respond to natural disasters.
In the near-term, the states asked Talwani to
order the Trump administration
to release the USDA contingency funds to help ensure there is not a lapse in SNAP program benefits beginning Nov. 1.
“Shutting off SNAP benefits will cause deterioration of public health and well-being,” they said in the lawsuit.
The USDA, for its part, had not yet shared details on the policy decision or decision not to funnel the contingency funds to SNAP beneficiaries.
A note on its website stated simply that, “[T]he well has run dry.”
“At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01,” the agency said.
The Justice Department has not yet said whether it will appeal either of the rulings to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
This is a developing news story. Check back soon for updates.
Eric
Eric is a seasoned journalist covering US Politics news.
