Focus on the BIG picture.
Thursday, Oct 30, 2025
Outside the box.
Major U.S. States File Lawsuit Against USDA to Preserve SNAP Benefits Amid Shutdown
More than two dozen states seek legal order compelling the U.S. Department of Agriculture to release contingency funds and continue payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
A coalition of 25 U.S. states and the District of Columbia filed federal suit on October 28, 2025, against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to compel the continuation of benefit disbursements under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) amid the ongoing federal government shutdown.
The states argue that an over nine-billion-dollar shortfall for November benefits demands activation of the USDA’s roughly five-to-six-billion-dollar emergency reserve rather than leaving tens of millions of low-income Americans without food support.
The lawsuit claims the USDA is unlawfully refusing to tap its contingency funds—arguing that the reserves are only meant for natural disasters—not for program funding during appropriations gaps.
The plaintiffs contend federal law obliges the agency to administer SNAP continuously and that the withholding of payments would mark the first such lapse in the programme’s sixty-year history.
Under the programme, the federal government funds 100 per cent of food-benefit payments while states administer eligibility and distribution; a suspension would shift hardship onto state budgets and beneficiaries.
Plaintiffs request a court order to compel immediate activation of the reserve funds and maintain benefit operations through at least November.
The dispute emerges amid broader political tension: the shutdown was triggered by a funding impasse, and many congressional Republicans say SNAP requires full appropriations rather than use of contingency funds, whereas Democratic-led states say delay or suspension would cause a humanitarian crisis.
Food-banks across the country are already preparing for a surge in demand as the benefit cliff looms.
Federal officials have warned that the contingency funds are “not legally available to cover regular benefits” during an appropriations lapse, according to internal memoranda—a point the suit directly challenges.
The court has scheduled a hearing in the coming days to determine whether to order immediate release of funds and prevent disruption in benefits to millions of Americans.
The case will test the limits of federal emergency reserves, states’ rights in implementing welfare programmes, and the capacity of the USDA to maintain critical social-safety nets during government funding crises.
The states argue that an over nine-billion-dollar shortfall for November benefits demands activation of the USDA’s roughly five-to-six-billion-dollar emergency reserve rather than leaving tens of millions of low-income Americans without food support.
The lawsuit claims the USDA is unlawfully refusing to tap its contingency funds—arguing that the reserves are only meant for natural disasters—not for program funding during appropriations gaps.
The plaintiffs contend federal law obliges the agency to administer SNAP continuously and that the withholding of payments would mark the first such lapse in the programme’s sixty-year history.
Under the programme, the federal government funds 100 per cent of food-benefit payments while states administer eligibility and distribution; a suspension would shift hardship onto state budgets and beneficiaries.
Plaintiffs request a court order to compel immediate activation of the reserve funds and maintain benefit operations through at least November.
The dispute emerges amid broader political tension: the shutdown was triggered by a funding impasse, and many congressional Republicans say SNAP requires full appropriations rather than use of contingency funds, whereas Democratic-led states say delay or suspension would cause a humanitarian crisis.
Food-banks across the country are already preparing for a surge in demand as the benefit cliff looms.
Federal officials have warned that the contingency funds are “not legally available to cover regular benefits” during an appropriations lapse, according to internal memoranda—a point the suit directly challenges.
The court has scheduled a hearing in the coming days to determine whether to order immediate release of funds and prevent disruption in benefits to millions of Americans.
The case will test the limits of federal emergency reserves, states’ rights in implementing welfare programmes, and the capacity of the USDA to maintain critical social-safety nets during government funding crises.
