USDA Ordered to Resume SNAP Funding by Judges, but Immediate Aid for Hungry Families Remains Uncertain

Two federal judges told the U.S. Department of Agriculture in separate rulings Friday that it must begin using billions of dollars in contingency funding to provide federal food assistance to poor American families despite the federal shutdown, but gave the agency until Monday to decide how to do so.

Both Obama-appointed judges rejected Trump administration arguments that more than $5 billion in USDA contingency funds could not legally be tapped to continue Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for nearly 42 million people — about 1 in 8 Americans — while the federal government remains closed. But both also left unclear how exactly the relief should be provided, or when it will arrive for millions of families set to lose benefits starting Saturday.

The two rulings came almost simultaneously Friday.

In Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani stopped short of granting California and a coalition of 24 other Democrat-led states a temporary restraining order they had requested. But she ruled that the states were likely to succeed in their arguments that the USDA’s total shutoff of SNAP benefits — despite having billions in emergency contingency funds on hand — was unlawful.

Talwani gave USDA until Monday to tell her whether they would authorize “only reduced SNAP benefits” using the contingency funding — which would not cover the total $8.5 billion to $9 billion needed for all November benefits, according to the USDA — or would authorize “full SNAP benefits using both the Contingency Funds and additional available funds.”

Separately, in Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John McConnell granted a temporary restraining order requested by nonprofit organizations, ruling from the bench that SNAP must be funded with at least the contingency funds “as soon as possible,” and requesting an update on progress by Monday.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta — whose office helped bring the states’ lawsuit — praised the decisions of the two courts, saying SNAP benefits “provide an essential hunger safety net” to 5.5 million Californians. “Simply put, the stakes could not be higher.”

Skye Perryman, president and chief executive of Democracy Forward, which represented the nonprofit groups, said the ruling in that case “affirms what both the law and basic decency require” and “protects millions of families, seniors, and veterans from being used as leverage in a political fight.”

It was not clear if the administration would appeal the rulings. President Trump wrote in a post to his Truth Social platform that he does not want Americans to go hungry and that he had instructed the government’s lawyers “to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible,” as it would be his “HONOR” to provide the funding with “appropriate legal direction by the Court.”

“It is already delayed enough due to the Democrats keeping the Government closed through the monthly payment date and, even if we get immediate guidance, it will unfortunately be delayed while States get the money out,” Trump wrote, before urging SNAP recipients to call Democrats in Congress and demand they end the shutdown.

While the orders were a win for states and the nation’s SNAP recipients, they do not mean that all those recipients will be spared a lapse in their food aid, state officials stressed. State and local food banks continued scrambling to prepare for a deluge of need starting Saturday.

Asked Thursday if a ruling in the states’ favor would mean SNAP funds would be immediately loaded onto CalFresh and other benefits cards, Bonta said “the answer is no, unfortunately.”

“Our best estimates are that [SNAP benefit] cards could be loaded and used in about a week,” he said, calling that lag “problematic.”

“There could be about a week where people are hungry and need food,” he said. For new applicants to the program, he said, it could take even longer.

The rulings came as the now monthlong shutdown continued Friday with no immediate end in sight.

They also came after Trump called Thursday for the Senate to end the shutdown by first ending the filibustera longstanding rule that requires 60 votes to overcome objections to legislation. The rule has traditionally been favored by lawmakers as a means of blocking particularly partisan measures, and is currently being used by Democrats to resist the will of the current 53-seat Republican majority.

Los Angeles Regional Food Bank Chief Executive Michael Flood, standing alongside Bonta as members of the California National Guard worked behind them stuffing food boxes Thursday, said his organization was preparing for massive weekend lines, similar to those seen during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This is a disaster type of situation,” Flood said.

“5.5 million Californians, 1.5 million children and adults in L.A. County alone, will be left high and dry — illegally so, unnecessarily so, in a way that is morally bankrupt,” Bonta said.

Bonta blamed the shutdown on Trump and his administration, and said the USDA broke the law by not tapping its contingency funds to continue payments.

Bonta said SNAP benefits have never been disrupted during previous federal government shutdowns, and should never have been disrupted during this shutdown, either.

“That was avoidable,” he said. “Trump created this problem.”

The Trump administration has blamed the shutdown and the looming disruption to SNAP benefits entirely on Democrats in Congress, who have blocked short-term spending measures to restart the government and fund SNAP. Democrats are holding out to pressure Republicans into rescinding massive cuts to subsidies that help millions of Americans afford health insurance.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, previously told The Times that Democrats should be the ones getting asked “when the shutdown will end,” because “they are the ones who have decided to shut down the government so they can use working Americans and SNAP benefits as ‘leverage’ to pursue their radical left wing agenda.”

“Americans are suffering because of Democrats,” Jackson said.

In their opposition to the states’ request for a temporary restraining order requiring the disbursement of funds, attorneys for the USDA argued that using emergency funds to cover November SNAP benefits would deplete funds meant to provide “critical support in the event of natural disasters and other uncontrollable catastrophes,” and could actually cause more disruption to benefits down the line.

They wrote that SNAP requires between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month, and the USDA’s contingency fund has only about $5.25 billion, meaning it could not fully fund November benefits even if it did release contingency funding. Meanwhile, “a partial payment has never been made — and for good reason,” because it would force every state to recalculate benefits for recipients and then recalibrate their systems to provide the new amounts, they wrote.

That “would take weeks, if it can be done at all,” and would then have to be undone in order to issue December benefits at normal levels, assuming the shutdown would have lifted by then, they wrote.

Simply pausing the benefits to immediately be reissued whenever the shutdown ends is the smarter and less disruptive course of action, they argued.

In addition to suing the administration, California and its leaders have been rushing to ensure that hungry families have something to eat in coming days. Gov. Gavin Newsom directed $80 million to food banks to stock up on provisions, and activated the National Guard to help package food for those who need it.

Counties have also been working to offset the need, including by directing additional funding to food banks and other resource centers and asking partners in the private sector to assist.

Dozens of organizations in California have written to Newsom calling on him to use state funds to fully cover the missing federal benefits, in order to prevent “a crisis of unthinkable magnitude,” but Newsom has suggested that is not possible given the scale of funding withheld.

SNAP served about 41.7 million people in 2024, at an annual cost of nearly $100 billion, according to the USDA. Children and older people accounted for more than 63% of California recipients.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

What specific work requirements for ABAWDs were challenged in the legal case?

The Court Ruling and its Implications for SNAP benefits

On October 31st, 2025, a federal court issued a mandate compelling the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to reinstate Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding to several states. This ruling follows a legal challenge brought forth by a coalition of state attorneys general arguing that recent restrictions imposed on SNAP eligibility were unlawful and detrimental to vulnerable populations. The core of the dispute centered around work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs), which were considerably tightened earlier this year.

The judges found that the USDA had not adequately considered the regional economic disparities and limited job availability when implementing the stricter ABAWD rules. This decision directly impacts millions of Americans relying on food assistance, particularly those in areas with high unemployment rates.While a victory for advocates of SNAP benefits,the immediate impact on families facing food insecurity remains unclear.

Why Was SNAP Funding Restricted in the first place?

The initial restrictions on SNAP eligibility were framed as an effort to encourage self-sufficiency and reduce dependency on government assistance. Proponents argued that requiring ABAWDs to work, participate in job training programs, or demonstrate active job search efforts would incentivize employment and boost the economy.

Though, critics countered that these requirements were unrealistic in many areas, especially those with limited job opportunities or a high cost of living. Thay pointed to the fact that many SNAP recipients already work low-wage jobs and face significant barriers to employment, such as lack of transportation, childcare, or skills training. The debate surrounding SNAP work requirements has been ongoing for years, ofen becoming a focal point in broader discussions about welfare reform.

What States Are Affected by the Ruling?

The court order specifically affects states where the USDA had approved waivers allowing for stricter ABAWD rules. these states include (but are not limited to):

* Alabama

* Georgia

* Kansas

* Kentucky

* Mississippi

* North Carolina

* Oklahoma

* South Carolina

* Tennessee

* Texas

The USDA is now required to re-evaluate waiver requests based on updated economic data and a more thorough consideration of local job market conditions. The reinstatement of SNAP eligibility in these states is expected to provide crucial support to hundreds of thousands of individuals and families.

The Delay in Aid: Why Isn’t Help Arriving Promptly?

Despite the court’s ruling, immediate relief for hungry families is not guaranteed. Several factors contribute to this delay:

1. USDA implementation: The USDA needs time to process the court order and issue updated guidance to state agencies.This includes revising eligibility criteria and retraining staff.
2. State-Level Adjustments: State SNAP agencies must then update their systems and procedures to reflect the new rules. This can be a complex and time-consuming process.
3. Notification to Recipients: Individuals who were previously deemed ineligible due to the stricter work requirements must be notified of their restored eligibility and provided with instructions on how to reapply or resume benefits.
4. Potential for Further Legal Challenges: The USDA could potentially appeal the court’s decision, which would further delay the reinstatement of funding.

This bureaucratic lag means that even with the court ruling, it could take weeks or even months for affected families to see a return to their food stamp benefits.

Understanding SNAP Benefits: A Quick guide

SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, is a federal program designed to combat hunger and improve nutrition among low-income individuals and families. Here’s a breakdown of key aspects:

* Eligibility: Eligibility requirements vary by state but generally include income limits, resource limits, and work requirements (now under review).

* Benefit Amounts: Benefit amounts are based on household size, income, and expenses.

* How to Apply: Individuals can apply for SNAP benefits through their state’s SNAP agency. Online applications are often available.

* What Can Be Purchased: SNAP benefits can be used to purchase most food items, but not hot prepared foods or non-food items.

Resources for finding more facts:

* USDA SNAP Website: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap

* State SNAP Agency Directory: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/state-directory

The role of Food Banks and Charitable Organizations

while the legal battle over SNAP funding continues, food banks and charitable organizations play a critical role in providing immediate assistance to those facing food insecurity. These organizations rely on donations and volunteers to distribute food to individuals and families in need.

* Feeding America: A national network of food banks providing food assistance to millions of Americans. (https://www.feedingamerica.org/)

* Local Food Banks: Search online for food banks in yoru area to find local resources.

*