A federal judge has ordered the U.S. government to tap emergency funds to maintain food-aid payments under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) after the programme faced the threat of suspension amid the ongoing federal government shutdown. The ruling comes as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) claimed it lacked the authority and funding to continue monthly benefit payments to some 42 million low-income Americans.
In two near simultaneous decisions on Friday, one in Rhode Island and the other in Massachusetts, U.S. district judges ruled that the USDA must deploy roughly US$ 5 billion in contingency funds and consider an additional US$ 23 billion reserve to keep SNAP operational despite the funding impasse. The plaintiffs, a coalition of 25 Democratic-led states, the District of Columbia and various nonprofits and unions, argued that federal law requires SNAP benefits to be furnished to all eligible households and cannot simply be halted because Congress has not passed a new spending bill.
The USDA had argued that the contingency funds were legally unavailable to cover regular monthly benefit payments, asserting that such reserves were intended solely for “emergencies” like natural disasters, not for bridging a funding lapse resulting from budget negotiations. The judges rejected this interpretation, with one stating that “irreparable harm” would result if benefits were disrupted and that the administration’s position lacked a convincing legal basis.
The decision has significant implications not only for beneficiaries but also for state agencies and local economies. SNAP disbursements amount to roughly US$ 8.5-9 billion per month and support one in eight Americans. If benefits had lapsed, states warned of ripple-effects: local food banks, grocery retailers and the wider supply chain would face heightened strain. However, the judges also acknowledged that processing and distribution of benefits may experience delays, since systems rely on monthly debit card reloads that take time to implement even when funding is cleared.
While the relief measures ordered by the courts avert an immediate cut-off, the broader political debate remains unresolved: the shutdown persists, and Congress has yet to pass fresh appropriations. The administration may appeal the rulings, and the legal question of how emergency funds may be used in the context of social welfare programmes during budget standoffs will likely face further challenges.
