As the federal government shutdown in the United States continues, a federal judge is currently reviewing whether to compel the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to utilize $5 billion in emergency funds to sustain the nationwide Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), preventing tens of millions of low-income families from facing food shortages.
Boston Federal District Court Judge Indira Talwani, during a hearing on Thursday, October 30th, expressed that the government should seek a compromise to at least provide partial assistance to recipients rather than a complete halt. She stated, “There should be a fair way to reduce benefits, rather than canceling them altogether.” Talwani is expected to make a ruling later that day.
The SNAP program costs approximately $100 billion annually, providing food assistance to approximately one-eighth of the U.S. population, making it one of the largest social welfare programs in the United States. The USDA notified states on October 10th that due to the government shutdown, SNAP benefits for November would not be distributed. If the shutdown continues, the program’s funds will be exhausted by November 1st.
Facing an imminent funding shortfall, 25 states jointly filed a lawsuit against the USDA on October 27th, arguing that the department could legally use the $5 billion emergency fund to maintain assistance payments. The plaintiffs believe that cutting off the assistance would not only impact tens of millions of impoverished families but also disrupt retail businesses that rely on these consumers.
However, on the same day, House Speaker Mike Johnson stated that using the funds would be “illegal” as they were originally designated for programs like school meals and infant formula.
An internal USDA memorandum also indicated that the fund along with an additional $23 billion in tariff revenue is currently being used to support school breakfast and lunch programs as well as the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition assistance program.
The memorandum emphasized that if states advance funds for SNAP benefits themselves, the federal government cannot reimburse them afterward. Some states, like Virginia, have planned to implement temporary measures to ensure food security for the public.
Federal government lawyers cited the Antideficiency Act, arguing that during a shutdown, any unauthorized expenditures are illegal. Government documents state that even if the USDA has the capability to reallocate funds, the decision-making authority lies with the executive branch, not the courts or the plaintiff states. The documents suggest that the emergency fund should be reserved for responding to “natural disasters and other uncontrollable catastrophes.”
However, Talwani raised doubts about this argument. During the hearing, she remarked, “When millions of people are unable to access food assistance and the government has no available funds, I find it hard to see this as anything other than an emergency situation.”
Currently, Senate Democrats are refusing to support the stopgap funding bill passed by the House, while Republicans have rejected standalone funding bills for SNAP, further exacerbating the budget impasse.