Federal Judges Order Trump Administration to Fund SNAP Amid Shutdown, But Leave Door Open for Partial Funding.
Two federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island have ruled that President Donald Trump's administration must continue to fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, using contingency funds during the ongoing government shutdown. The ruling comes after the USDA had planned to freeze payments to the program due to the shutdown.
The decision means that SNAP recipients in 25 states and the District of Columbia will receive funding for November, but it's unclear whether the full amount will be restored. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey had filed a lawsuit against the USDA, arguing that the agency has a legal obligation to keep SNAP running in her state.
In Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell ruled from the bench that the program must be funded using at least $5 billion in contingency funds, and he asked for an update on progress by Monday. McConnell also ordered the federal government to use emergency reserves to backfill SNAP benefits.
The Boston case, which was heard by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, reached a similar conclusion. Talwani ruled that the USDA's suspension of SNAP payments was "unlawful" and that the agency must pay for the program using contingency funds and additional available funds.
SNAP serves about 1 in every 8 Americans and is a major piece of the nation's social safety net, with costs estimated at around $8 billion per month nationally. The program provides assistance to nearly 41 million people, mostly families with children, who are struggling to make ends meet.
While the ruling offers some relief to SNAP recipients, advocates say that halting the food aid would force people to choose between buying groceries and paying other bills. However, most states have announced more or expedited funding for food banks or novel ways to load at least some benefits onto the debit cards used in the program.
The Trump administration has been under pressure to find a solution to the SNAP funding crisis during the shutdown. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, whose department runs SNAP, blamed Democrats for conducting a "disgusting dereliction of duty" by refusing to end their Senate filibuster as they hold out for an extension of health care funds.
The ruling is likely to face appeals, but it provides some respite to SNAP recipients who are bracing for the shutdown's impact on their lives.
Two federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island have ruled that President Donald Trump's administration must continue to fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, using contingency funds during the ongoing government shutdown. The ruling comes after the USDA had planned to freeze payments to the program due to the shutdown.
The decision means that SNAP recipients in 25 states and the District of Columbia will receive funding for November, but it's unclear whether the full amount will be restored. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey had filed a lawsuit against the USDA, arguing that the agency has a legal obligation to keep SNAP running in her state.
In Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell ruled from the bench that the program must be funded using at least $5 billion in contingency funds, and he asked for an update on progress by Monday. McConnell also ordered the federal government to use emergency reserves to backfill SNAP benefits.
The Boston case, which was heard by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, reached a similar conclusion. Talwani ruled that the USDA's suspension of SNAP payments was "unlawful" and that the agency must pay for the program using contingency funds and additional available funds.
SNAP serves about 1 in every 8 Americans and is a major piece of the nation's social safety net, with costs estimated at around $8 billion per month nationally. The program provides assistance to nearly 41 million people, mostly families with children, who are struggling to make ends meet.
While the ruling offers some relief to SNAP recipients, advocates say that halting the food aid would force people to choose between buying groceries and paying other bills. However, most states have announced more or expedited funding for food banks or novel ways to load at least some benefits onto the debit cards used in the program.
The Trump administration has been under pressure to find a solution to the SNAP funding crisis during the shutdown. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, whose department runs SNAP, blamed Democrats for conducting a "disgusting dereliction of duty" by refusing to end their Senate filibuster as they hold out for an extension of health care funds.
The ruling is likely to face appeals, but it provides some respite to SNAP recipients who are bracing for the shutdown's impact on their lives.
. I think it's great that these judges are stepping in and forcing Trump's admin to keep funding SNAP, even if it means using emergency funds 
. It's like they say, "don't leave people hungry" 
. This ruling might not solve the whole issue, but it's a start 
. I'm just glad that some states are finding ways to provide more support for food banks and debit cards 
. It's not ideal, but at least some families won't be going without groceries 
. What do you guys think? Should we be worried about this ruling getting appealed?
? The government shutdown is so messed up. People are literally struggling to afford food, and yet they're still making decisions that affect millions of Americans. I'm all for finding a way out of the impasse, but come on, $5 billion in contingency funds shouldn't be the bare minimum 
.
SNAP is already struggling to keep up with demand, and now they're going to cut funding on top of that. It's just not right.
. Can't we find a way to work together without putting people in harm's way?
Shutdown's gonna be a real food- fest 
. While it's a step in the right direction that federal judges have ordered the Trump administration to continue funding SNAP, I worry that this may only serve as a temporary Band-Aid for the issue. The long-term implications of halting food aid during the shutdown could be devastating, particularly for families with young children who rely on these benefits to make ends meet 
.