Federal judge rules Trump admin’s SNAP benefits cutoff ‘likely unlawful’

A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled on Friday that the Trump administration’s decision to suspend SNAP benefits for 42 million Americans was likely unlawful. This ruling came amidst the ongoing government shutdown, which threatened the primary food assistance program for low-income households.

However, Judge Indira Talwani stopped short of ordering the White House to use emergency funds to continue the program. Instead, she issued a 15-page order demanding a response from the Department of Agriculture (USDA). The judge gave the agency until Monday to report on its capabilities.

Specifically, the USDA must state whether it can use money from a disaster relief fund to provide reduced SNAP benefits. Alternatively, it must report on using that emergency money plus other available funds to authorize full benefits. This legal action was prompted by a lawsuit from 25 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia.

These states sued the USDA after it declared that funding for SNAP, commonly known as food stamps, had run out. The plaintiffs argued the administration was violating the Food and Nutrition Act. This law mandates that assistance must be provided to all eligible households.

The scheduled lapse of benefits on Saturday marked the first time in six decades that federal SNAP funding had been interrupted. Earlier on Friday, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins defended the administration’s position. She insisted the contingency fund could not be legally used for this purpose.

Secretary Rollins stated the fund is insufficient, covering less than half of the required $9.2 billion for November. She further argued that the contingency fund can only be accessed if the underlying SNAP program is already funded. According to her, its designated purpose is for specific events like natural disasters. The court is now awaiting the USDA’s official response to its order.