WASHINGTON — Two federal judges issued rulings on Friday that challenge the Trump administration’s plan to suspend Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, directing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to utilize available emergency funding to maintain food assistance payments.
In Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. issued an oral ruling from the bench requiring the USDA to distribute contingency funds to continue SNAP payments that were scheduled to begin Saturday, November 1. The judge determined that halting benefits for more than 40 million low-income Americans would constitute arbitrary action under the Administrative Procedure Act.
During Friday’s hearing, Judge McConnell emphasized the urgency of the situation, stating that harm was imminent or already occurring due to fears about food security for families. He directed the USDA to deploy emergency contingency funds immediately and, if those prove insufficient, to examine additional federal funding sources, including Section 32 funds derived from customs receipts.
Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled in a separate lawsuit brought by 25 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. Judge Talwani found that the states were likely to succeed in their legal challenge, concluding that the suspension of SNAP benefits was unlawful. However, rather than issuing an immediate temporary restraining order, she gave the administration until Monday, November 3, to present a plan for using contingency funds to provide at least partial benefits for November.
The Rhode Island lawsuit was filed by a coalition that included cities, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and small business groups. The plaintiffs argued that the administration had unnecessarily created a crisis by refusing to tap into a contingency fund containing approximately $5.25 billion.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins defended the administration’s position during a Capitol Hill appearance Friday morning, contesting claims that the contingency fund could be legally accessed. She characterized such assertions as false and maintained that the fund was designated exclusively for natural disasters or similar emergencies, and could only be spent when an underlying appropriation from Congress exists.
Government attorneys had warned the courts about potential complications with distributing partial payments, noting that state systems might face technical challenges in processing reduced benefit amounts—something unprecedented in SNAP’s history. The Justice Department also argued that without a congressional appropriation, the program essentially ceased to exist.
The USDA has estimated that maintaining SNAP benefits requires between $8.5 billion and $9 billion monthly to serve the 42 million Americans who depend on the program. While the contingency fund contains over $5 billion, it falls short of covering a full month of benefits.
Both judges ordered the USDA to report back to their respective courts by Monday detailing compliance plans and implementation timelines. As of Friday evening, it remained unclear exactly when or how November SNAP benefits would be distributed, or whether recipients might experience delays or reduced payments.
These judicial decisions represent a significant assertion of judicial oversight regarding executive branch management of federal assistance programs, particularly during funding uncertainties.
