In brief
Two federal judges are set to rule on the Trump administration's ability to halt SNAP food assistance benefits for November during the ongoing government shutdown, which impacts approximately 41 million Americans. While a judge voiced skepticism about the administration's justification for suspending funds, complications regarding the benefits remain. Even if benefits aren't suspended, beneficiaries may face delays in receiving their aid. The tension between federal funding limitations and state demands adds complexity to the situation, as advocates warn of dire consequences for low-income families.
BOSTON (AP) — Two judges could rule as soon as Friday on whether President Donald Trump’s administration must replenish SNAP food aid benefits for November despite the government shutdown.
The grocery-buying ability for about 1 in 8 Americans could hinge on the outcomes.
Even if a judge rules the benefits cannot be suspended for the first time in SNAP’s 61-year history, many beneficiaries are likely to face delays in getting the debit cards they use to buy groceries reloaded. That process can take one to two weeks, so it’s likely too late to get funds on cards in the first days of November.
In a hearing in Boston Thursday on a legal challenge filed by Democratic officials from 25 states, one federal judge seemed skeptical of the administration’s argument that SNAP benefits could be halted.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani told lawyers that if the government can’t afford to cover the cost, there’s a process to follow rather than simply suspending all benefits. “The steps involve finding an equitable way of reducing benefits,” said Talwani, who was nominated to the court by former President Barack Obama.
Judge Talwani appeared inclined to require the government to allocate billions of dollars in emergency funds toward SNAP, positing that is what Congress intended when an agency’s funding runs out.
“If you don’t have money, you tighten your belt,” she remarked during the hearings. “You are not going to make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game someplace.”
The government argues that a contingency fund containing $5 billion cannot legally be used to maintain SNAP, a program that costs about $8 billion monthly. State officials contend that it should indeed be utilized for that purpose, citing additional available funds in a federal account.
Talwani noted that her ruling would take effect nationwide, not limited to states partaking in the challenge, which could contradict the recent intentions of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding national injunctions.
A second legal challenge filed by cities and non-profit organizations is set for a hearing before a Rhode Island-based federal judge as soon as Friday, and any ruling is expected to face appeals.
Meanwhile, states, food banks, and SNAP recipients are preparing for significant changes in how low-income families access groceries. Several states are ramping up resources for food banks and exploring new methods for disbursing assistance as communities brace for potential disruption.
Advocates warn that halting food aid could force low-income families to make tough choices between buying groceries and paying other bills. A recent Congressional effort to continue SNAP funding during the shutdown was unsuccessful.
In 2025, to qualify for SNAP, a family of four's net income cannot exceed the federal poverty line, approximately $31,000 annually. Last year, SNAP assistance was provided to 41 million people, including nearly two-thirds from households with children.
