SNAP Funding Crisis Shutdown Update

42 million at risk of a lapse; the court signal, the math behind partial payouts, and the realistic deposit timeline.

Snap funding lapse during shutdown – A federal court in Boston is now the unlikely battleground over keeping food on the table for millions of Americans. As the government shutdown grinds on with no budget in sight, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani is poised to rule on whether the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must dip into emergency reserves to avert a catastrophic lapse in SNAP benefits. During a hearing Thursday, Judge Talwani signaled deep skepticism at the administration’s refusal to use contingency funds, bluntly calling it “hard for me to understand how this isn’t an emergency when there’s no money and a lot of people need their SNAP benefits” . While her written order is still pending, she indicated she may compel partial November payments to prevent families from going hungry, admonishing that “if you don’t have money, you tighten your belt… you are not going to make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game someplace” . The judge gave federal officials until Monday, Nov. 3, to report how they would keep the program funded – even if only partially – suggesting she’s inclined to side with the 25 states suing to maintain food aid .

Judge Signals Emergency Action in Boston

At Thursday’s court hearing in Boston, Judge Talwani’s pointed questioning left little doubt that she views the SNAP shutdown as a genuine emergency, not a mere budget quirk. “It’s hard for me to understand how this isn’t an emergency… when there’s no money and a lot of people need their SNAP benefits,” she remarked from the bench . The case before her is an urgent lawsuit by 25 states (joined by governors and attorneys general) aiming to force the federal government to unlock billions in SNAP contingency funds. Those states argue that suspending food assistance for November – slated to begin November 1 – would inflict irreparable harm on low-income residents, violating federal law and agency obligations . Judge Talwani appeared sympathetic: she agreed the looming cuts would be “devastating” and noted that Congress created a special SNAP emergency reserve precisely for crises like this shutdown .

Though no final ruling came immediately, Talwani signaled she is likely to grant relief. She ordered the government’s lawyers to report back by Monday with a plan to keep SNAP running and clarify whether benefits can be paid in full or at least in part . In essence, the judge gave the USDA a brief window to voluntarily use its reserve funds – or face a court injunction compelling it. Notably, in a parallel case the same day, U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island went a step further: from the bench, he ordered the USDA to tap its emergency fund “as soon as possible” to continue SNAP payments in that state . The two near-simultaneous rulings mark an unprecedented judicial intervention into federal budget turf . “Usually, the federal courts tend to stay out of spending matters, but the reason they are entertaining these is because of the consequences to plaintiffs,” explained one legal analyst of the extraordinary twin decisions .

For Judge Talwani, a Massachusetts jurist known for her no-nonsense style, the core issue is straightforward: hunger is an emergency. “You are not going to make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game someplace,” she admonished government attorneys, making clear she believes partial payments are better than none . In Talwani’s view, if Washington lacks a budget, agencies must “tighten the belt” and find equitable ways to reduce or delay benefits – not cut off aid entirely . By late Friday, word spread that Talwani would likely issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) on Monday forcing SNAP disbursements if the administration doesn’t act first .

Meanwhile, the shutdown’s clock has already run out for SNAP. As Talwani convened court, November 1 was just hours away, and with no appropriation, SNAP benefit files for the new month had been “frozen” nationwide. Indeed, the USDA acknowledged in court filings that without intervention, no benefits would be issued on November 1 – the first such lapse in the program’s 60-year history . The gravity of that first-ever cutoff was not lost on the judge: in six decades, through many shutdown showdowns, SNAP has never before failed to deliver monthly aid . The historical weight, combined with emotional testimony about families’ looming hardships, set the stage for what could be a landmark decision.

USDA Holds Back: Contingency Funds and Legal Standoff

At the center of this crisis is an obscure pot of money: the SNAP contingency reserve, roughly $5–6 billion set aside by Congress for program “operations” in case of emergency . That fund exists precisely to bridge short-term gaps yet the USDA under the Trump administration has refused to deploy it for the current shutdown. Government lawyers argue they lack legal authority to use the reserve for regular benefits without an appropriation. In an internal memo, USDA concluded that “contingency funds are not legally available to cover regular [SNAP] benefits” once Congress has failed to allocate new money . The agency insists those dollars can only “supplement” benefits when appropriated funds fall short, not outright replace lapsed funding . In other words, because lawmakers did not pass a budget, USDA claims its hands are tied – the emergency account, they say, is reserved for true one-off crises like hurricanes and natural disasters . (An example cited in USDA’s guidance: a hypothetical Hurricane “Melissa” poised to strike Florida, where SNAP reserves might be needed for disaster aid) . Administration officials also caution that draining the SNAP reserve would “pull away funding” from other nutrition programs, like school meal subsidies and infant formula for WIC, creating painful trade-offs . And crucially, they note, current law provides no mechanism for states to front the cost and be repaid later . “There is no provision or allowance under current law for states to cover the cost of benefits and be reimbursed,” the USDA memo warned, trying to discourage governors from dipping into their own coffers .

In court and public statements, USDA’s stance has drawn fierce criticism from the states and Democratic leaders. They argue that the administration is using hungry families as leverage in the broader budget fight. In fact, the USDA quietly deleted its own 2025 shutdown plan from public view, a plan which reportedly had acknowledged that contingency funds could be used to pay SNAP in a funding lapse . “The money has been appropriated; they are choosing not to distribute it,” Maryland’s Governor Wes Moore charged, calling the move “heartless, cruel, and unforgivable” . The coalition of suing states points out that Congress explicitly provided these billions as an emergency SNAP reserve through 2026, and that USDA has in past instances admitted those funds were “available to fund participant benefits” in a shutdown scenario . Senator Chuck Schumer, for one, blasted the agency’s legal rationale: “Don’t give me the lie that this can’t be done legally… $6 billion in emergency reserves were ‘available to fund participant benefits’ – that’s not Democrats saying that, that’s [USDA]” he said on the Senate floor . In the states’ lawsuit, they flatly accuse USDA of acting “contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious” by halting benefits despite having funds “sufficient to fund all, or at least a substantial portion” of November’s needs .

The political crossfire intensified as the shutdown dragged past four weeks. President Donald Trump, facing mounting pressure, took to social media to insist he “do[es] NOT want Americans to go hungry” but claimed “Government lawyers do not think we have the legal authority” to pay SNAP with the funds at hand . He said his attorneys were urgently asking the courts for clarity , even as he simultaneously lashed out at Democrats for “refus[ing] to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT” . “If we are given the appropriate legal direction by the Court, it will be my honor to provide the funding,” Trump wrote, asserting that Democrats’ shutdown demands – he cited unrelated disputes over health care policy – were to blame for the impasse . USDA’s public messaging took an unusually strident tone: a banner on its Food and Nutrition Service website pointedly stated, “Bottom line, the well has run dry. At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01… We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats. They can continue to hold out… or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive critical nutrition assistance.” Such overtly political language on a federal site is virtually unheard of, and it underscored how SNAP – normally a bipartisan lifeline program – has been dragged into the partisan shutdown standoff.

By the Numbers: Partial Payments and a Massive Shortfall

Behind the legal arguments loom stark mathematical realities. Even if Judge Talwani orders the USDA to deploy the contingency fund, it’s clear that not all benefits can be paid in full – the pie is simply too small. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits cost roughly $8 to $9 billion per month under normal operations . By contrast, the available contingency funds are only about $5–6 billion , according to budget analysts and the USDA’s own accounting. In other words, the reserve could cover perhaps two-thirds of a typical month’s allotment . Tens of millions of households would still face at least a partial cut in their November aid even if the court unlocks those dollars. Officials in court acknowledged this grim arithmetic. “Absent a 100% win for you, the benefits aren’t going to be there on Nov. 1,” Judge Talwani cautioned the plaintiff states, preparing them for the likelihood that any relief will be incomplete . She noted that even an emergency payout using the reserve “might still be painful” for SNAP recipients, because it could mean each family gets a smaller amount than usual, or receives the money late . The federal lawyers went further, arguing that attempting a nationwide partial disbursement could be “catastrophic” to administer if not done exactly right . States, however, responded that “partial payments are better than none” and the judge strongly agreed .

To grasp the scale: about 42 million Americans rely on SNAP to eat each month . That’s roughly 1 in 8 people across the country, including families with children, seniors, veterans, and the working poor. In ordinary times, the average beneficiary household receives around $187 in food assistance per month which is modest help, but often the difference between meals or hunger. In total, SNAP infuses close to $100 billion a year into grocery budgets nationwide . Any significant reduction in those benefits, even temporarily, sends shockwaves through both family finances and local economies. Anti-hunger advocates note that every $1 of SNAP translates to about $1.70 in economic activity, as recipients spend the money quickly at supermarkets and corner stores, supporting food industry jobs . Thus, a one-month cut-off approaching $8–9 billion isn’t just a blow to vulnerable households. It’s a multi-billion dollar hit to food retailers and producers as well. Grocery stores, especially in low-income and rural areas, were bracing for steep revenue drops in November if benefits didn’t flow. “Not only would a government shutdown have a devastating impact on hungry families, it has the potential to result in serious economic harm to retailers… that could ripple throughout our economy,” Congressman Jim McGovern warned in an emotional floor speech, recalling how essential SNAP spending is to local communities .

Timing is Everything: Why Delays May Be Unavoidable

Another sobering challenge hangs over this 11th-hour effort to save November’s food assistance: logistics. SNAP benefits aren’t issued by flipping a switch in Washington; they involve a complex dance between federal systems, state agencies, and private electronic payment processors. Each state works with an EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) vendor that loads SNAP allotments onto debit cards for recipients. To have benefits ready by the first of the month, states normally must transmit their payment files well in advance which is typically by the middle of the prior month . That lead time allows the EBT contractor to process data for millions of accounts and ensure funds hit cards on schedule.

But this month, the usual process never took place. Back on October 10, as the shutdown set in, USDA instructed all states to hold off on sending their November SNAP files to the EBT system . In a terse bulletin with little explanation, the agency told states it would not have the money to cover November benefits and was “exploring contingency plans” pending a resolution . Weeks passed with no further guidance to states . By the time of the court hearings at month’s end, that delay meant states had missed their usual transmission windows to guarantee a November 1 payout. Judge Talwani herself acknowledged that reality: even if she orders funds released, it may take time for states and vendors to program the payments. “Even if we get immediate guidance, it will unfortunately be delayed while states get the money out,” President Trump noted, tacitly confirming that a last-minute save can’t be instantaneous .

This means that millions of SNAP recipients could see a gap of several days (or longer) before any benefits reach their EBT cards, even if the court forces a partial distribution. Some states might manage to load emergency allotments by mid-November, for example, or issue staggered payments later in the month. Others may need to split whatever funds are available into multiple smaller disbursements. State SNAP directors have been frantically sketching out contingency delivery plans – but until the legal questions resolve, they are in a holding pattern. One food policy expert warned that if a state misses its internal deadline to start the issuance process, delays are almost inevitable, leaving households without access to the food assistance they rely on . This is why advocates stress that every hour counts: “Absent quick action, November benefits could be delayed or interrupted entirely,” a coalition of state attorneys general wrote, urging USDA to move with urgency .

In Massachusetts, for instance, officials said SNAP cuts were “on track to kick in on Saturday” (Nov. 1), and more than 1 million Bay State residents would immediately feel the impact . By shutdown day 30+, that scenario was playing out nationwide. Food banks and community pantries have been preparing for a surge of people in the first week of November who would normally be buying groceries with SNAP but now have empty balances. Some states did manage to send partial files to EBT processors just in case – for example, one plan discussed in court was to issue half-month benefits if the judge green-lit the reserve funds . But even that stopgap requires days of lead time to implement. In short, while the courts may force some relief, the clock ran down long ago on a seamless transition. The country is likely to see at least a brief SNAP outage, followed by an uneven restart of payments as bureaucracies scramble to catch up. For families living paycheck to paycheck, even a week’s delay in food assistance can spell crisis.

States Step In: Emergency Measures from Maryland to New Mexico

With Washington deadlocked, state and local leaders have been racing to fill the void and avert widespread hunger. In late October, several governors which included both Democrats and some Republicans announced stopgap plans using state funds or other resources to support those who lose federal benefits. One striking example came from Maryland: Governor Wes Moore declared a state of emergency on October 31 as SNAP’s Nov. 1 cutoff loomed . This allowed Maryland to swiftly mobilize $10 million in state emergency funds for food aid. Rather than try to directly pay out replacement SNAP benefits (which could be technically complicated and not reimbursable), Moore directed the $10 million to bolster food banks, pantries, and community organizations across the state . “We need to move quickly to make sure we are getting the most support to those most in need,” Gov. Moore said, standing at a food bank alongside volunteers . He emphasized that this crisis was “a human-made one… a Washington-made one. It is a Trump administration-made one,” underscoring his view that federal inaction forced Maryland’s hand . Maryland’s emergency funds will flow to networks like the Maryland Food Bank and local feeding programs to help tide people over . But state officials are candid that charity cannot fully substitute for SNAP: “Despite the $10 million infusion, there will still be significant need among the 680,000 Marylanders who rely on SNAP,” one Maryland lawmaker noted, urging that more may be required if the courts or Congress don’t restore benefits .

Other jurisdictions have taken different approaches. Washington, D.C. moved aggressively to protect its residents: Mayor Muriel Bowser announced that the District will use city reserve funds to cover any lapse in SNAP benefits through the end of November . This essentially means D.C.’s local government will pay November’s benefits for its ~90,000 SNAP recipients out-of-pocket (at a cost of about $29 million), ensuring no interruption in aid . “We were hopeful it wouldn’t come to this… but we’re moving forward to ensure we take care of D.C. residents in November,” Bowser said, noting it’s especially critical with the holidays approaching . The District also committed local funds to keep the WIC nutrition program running through November if needed .

Virginia’s response blended compassion with political savvy. Governor Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, declared a state of emergency and tapped state surplus money to provide weekly SNAP-like benefits to Virginians if the federal shutdown persists . The plan in Virginia is to issue smaller, more frequent state-funded payments (rather than one monthly sum) to help families buy food week-by-week as the crisis continues . This move won praise as an innovative way to mitigate hunger, though it’s meant to be a temporary bridge. In New Mexico, the governor similarly pledged to cover a gap in food stamp benefits for November using state funds .

Yet not every state government agreed to step in. In Maryland’s case, Gov. Moore initially resisted calls to use state dollars to fully cover SNAP benefits (an option that would cost an estimated $123 million for one month in MD) . Moore argued he had “no belief that the federal government is going to honor its promises [to reimburse],” making it too risky for Maryland to front that money . Instead, he favored the $10M food bank approach, drawing some bipartisan criticism that more should be done to “restore SNAP benefits through a program Marylanders already understand and rely on” . Lawmakers in Annapolis even outlined how the state’s rainy day fund could be tapped and existing EBT systems used to load state-paid benefits, basically mirroring what D.C. did . For now, Moore’s strategy is to lean on charities and hope the courts force federal action. “Hungry families cannot be used as pawns in broader political games,” one Maryland legislator warned, urging that if the legal fight fails, the state must revisit direct aid to prevent starvation .

Across the country, local communities have mobilized relief. In Boston, Mayor Michelle Wu pulled together nonprofits and donors in a campaign dubbed “In Boston, everybody eats.” She announced emergency partnerships to funnel resources into neighborhood food programs and meal sites . “While the federal administration walks away from their responsibilities, we are stepping in,” Mayor Wu said, decrying the SNAP stoppage as “extraordinary urgency” for cities to confront . Massachusetts’ Governor Maura Healey advanced $4 million in state funds to food banks as well , calling the situation “terrible, awful, unacceptable and needless” . In Worcester, MA, the United Way and city government set up a $1 million emergency fund to support local pantries . Food bank directors have been showing reporters bare shelves and dwindling stock, worried that demand will far exceed supply if SNAP falters . “I’m panicked because… people are not going to get fed. I’m going to have to turn away people tomorrow,” said one Worcester food bank leader on the eve of Nov. 1 . The sense on the ground is a mix of anxiety and moral outrage. As Boston’s mayor put it, “the fact that we’re talking about food – in one of the richest nations in the world – and we’re messing with the food… it really breaks my heart.”

Who Is Judge Indira Talwani?

Judge Indira Talwani, who may soon order SNAP benefits restored, is a 2014 appointee to the federal bench with a reputation for incisive, pragmatic rulings. Nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate 94–0, Talwani became the first Asian American woman to serve as a U.S. District Judge in Massachusetts . Now 65, she brought to the bench decades of experience as a civil litigator in Boston and San Francisco, often advocating for workers’ and civil rights. In her judicial role, Talwani has handled both routine and high-profile cases and notably presiding over several sentencings in the 2019 “Varsity Blues” college admissions scandal. In that case, she drew national attention for her firm but fair handling, including the sentencing of actress Felicity Huffman to jail time for fraud . Colleagues describe Talwani as thorough and unflappable, with a sharp eye for when government actions stray beyond the law. Her background in complex litigation prepared her for the current SNAP case, which involves intricate questions of budget authority and administrative law. Appointed at the tail end of a previous shutdown crisis in 2013, Judge Talwani is now at the center of a battle testing the limits of executive power during a funding lapse. As a jurist, she’s known for plainspoken candor which is evident in her courtroom rebukes about playing “political games” with people’s lives . How she rules in the SNAP emergency lawsuit will not only impact millions of Americans immediately, but could also cement her legacy in safeguarding the public interest amid political gridlock.

Media Coverage: A Crisis in the Shadows?

Despite the massive stakes, the SNAP funding lapse story has often flown under the national media radar. Coverage of the government shutdown has tended to focus on high-level partisan drama such as Capitol Hill clashes, federal workers furloughed, park closures and all the while the looming halt in food assistance received relatively scant headline attention from major outlets at first. Advocates and officials have noticed the gap. For example, in the week leading up to Nov. 1, The New York Times offered only passing mentions of the SNAP situation in broader shutdown articles, with no front-page piece devoted solely to the millions about to lose food aid. Cable news varied: MSNBC and CNN reported on the SNAP lawsuit and judges’ moves, but often in short segments buried amid other political news. By contrast, local news organizations in affected areas provided intensive coverage treating it as the top story that it arguably is. Boston’s TV stations and newspapers ran explainers and nightly updates on the court fight and community response . In Washington, D.C., and Maryland, outlets like The Washington Post highlighted local leaders’ scramble to avert hunger . WaPo’s regional section noted D.C.’s decision to fully fund November SNAP itself, even as Maryland opted for food bank aid .

Some patterns of omission became clear. Legacy national press such as network evening news broadcasts gave the SNAP lapse minimal airtime until the court rulings broke. The human side of the story, tens of millions worried about feeding their families, often got less emphasis than political blame games. In one telling example, Fox News covered the issue frequently, but largely through a partisan lens: its headlines announced “Trump vows to fund SNAP as soon as possible if court allows, blasts Democrats” . Fox’s reports stressed the president’s perspective that Democrats’ shutdown demands were holding up food stamps, and amplified his calls for recipients to “call the Senate Democrats… tell them to reopen the government” . Meanwhile, Fox also reported on the court orders – noting with some surprise that two federal judges had stepped in to protect aid for 42 million Americans – but such segments often ran on daytime programming or Fox Business, not always in primetime. On the other end of the spectrum, MSNBC commentators framed the story as an administration choosing cruelty, but those discussions were frequently overshadowed by other Beltway news. CNN published straightforward news briefs (and one piece from CBS News was syndicated widely, declaring “SNAP benefits set to lapse Nov. 1” ), yet the story rarely achieved “breaking news” chyron status.

In effect, the SNAP shutdown crisis was treated as a niche or regional issue by many national media outlets, even though it directly touches 1 in 8 Americans and billions of dollars in commerce. Only as the deadline hit and courts intervened did broader attention perk up. This muted coverage has drawn quiet criticism from hunger advocates: they argue that if 42 million middle-class Americans were about to lose, say, their Social Security checks, it would lead the news everywhere. The relative silence, they suggest, speaks volumes about which issues command media urgency. Still, the depth of local and specialized reporting (from public radio to policy journals) ensured that the information did reach those most affected – often via community networks, social media alerts, and texts to SNAP users warning of the pending lapse. Those efforts, however, can’t fully counteract the lack of a loud national spotlight. By keeping the SNAP story low-profile, critics say, the media at large may have missed an opportunity to hold policymakers accountable for a preventable crisis. The quietness also perhaps made it easier for the situation to drag on to the brink.

Has SNAP Ever Come This Far to the Edge?

The historical context makes this year’s SNAP crisis even more striking. In all previous federal shutdowns in the modern era, the government found ways to avoid cutting off food stamp benefits, even during protracted standoffs. SNAP (formerly known as Food Stamps) has existed since 1964, and while political fights have threatened it before, never in its 60-year history have benefits actually lapsed due to a shutdown . During the last major shutdown in 2018–2019 – a record 35-day funding impasse – the Trump administration took extraordinary measures to keep SNAP funded. In that episode, the USDA invoked a little-known provision of budget law to issue February 2019 benefits early, in January . Essentially, they leveraged leftover money from the prior year and a timing quirk to load an entire month of benefits onto EBT cards before funding ran out. “It works and is legally sound… benefits for February will be provided,” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue announced at the time, emphasizing USDA’s commitment to “do right and feed everyone” despite the shutdown . That creative fix ensured no interruption for recipients, though it required families to stretch that early payment over a longer gap. By March 2019, the government had reopened, so SNAP continued normally thereafter .

Rewind further to the 2013 shutdown (a 16-day closure under President Obama): back then, SNAP beneficiaries similarly did not see a cut in their monthly allotments. The reason was that SNAP had a built-in cushion at the time – a contingency fund buoyed by unspent stimulus money from the 2009 Recovery Act . Those reserve dollars were used to cover October 2013 benefits, and the government reopened before November’s were due, preventing any lapse . In fact, Congressman McGovern noted that in 2013 “SNAP had contingency funds available from the stimulus law that meant SNAP benefits continued uninterrupted” . However, he presciently warned in 2015 that those stimulus reserves were gone, meaning “this time around, there’s no ‘back-up’ plan for SNAP” if a shutdown hit . He was right – by 2025, that lack of a buffer became alarmingly apparent.

Prior to 2013, federal shutdowns in the 1980s and 1990s tended to be brief, and SNAP (then Food Stamps) either had forward funding or prompt restoration before any missed cycles. A review of USDA policies shows that past administrations treated SNAP as a must-protect priority during funding gaps. Contingency plans consistently assumed that multi-year funds or transfer authority would be used to prevent harm . For instance, a contingency plan in 2021 (ahead of a potential 2023 shutdown) explicitly stated SNAP would continue by tapping carryover and reserves . And during Trump’s first term, guidance in late 2018 assured states that if the shutdown persisted, billions in reserve were available to keep benefits flowing . This makes the current USDA position – that it cannot or will not use those reserves – a sharp break from past practice. “Never before… not once under a Democratic president or a Republican president – has SNAP funding lapsed during a shutdown. Not even in 2019, during Trump’s last shutdown,” Sen. Schumer emphasized . “In fact, Trump himself funded SNAP during that shutdown,” he added, highlighting the irony that the same administration now claims its hands are tied by law .

The closest parallel to the current situation might be the 1995–96 shutdowns under President Clinton, which were lengthy but ultimately resolved before any missed benefits. In those cases, Congress passed emergency legislation to ensure food stamps were paid. Such legislative intervention is another thing notably absent in 2025 – as of early November, Congress has not managed to pass even a stopgap measure to explicitly fund SNAP, largely due to political stalemate. Back in 1995, a Republican-led Congress actually sent a bill to President Clinton to restore certain benefits during the shutdown; in 2025, by contrast, the House and Senate have been locked in a broader feud with SNAP caught in the crossfire.

Another historical footnote: during the 1981 Reagan-era budget showdown, there were brief disruptions in federal administration, but the food stamp program at the time had unspent funds it could roll over for a short period. Thus, the nation has never seen what was about to occur on Nov. 1, 2025 – mass USDA instructions to states to stop payments, and grocery stores being told that EBT cards might not reload. It represents uncharted territory for a safety-net program that has long been considered politically untouchable in budget wars.

Looking Ahead: Precedent for Shutdowns to Come

What happens in Judge Talwani’s courtroom in the coming days could resonate far beyond this shutdown. The legal showdown in Boston is poised to test the boundaries of executive discretion during funding lapses. If the court indeed orders the USDA to deploy emergency funds – and especially if the administration complies – it may set a powerful precedent: that the executive branch has a duty to mitigate harm to the public, even absent appropriations, when Congress has provided contingency resources. Such a ruling would bolster the principle that agencies cannot simply close up shop on essential services if any lawful funding source exists to keep them partially running. It could influence how future administrations draft their shutdown contingency plans, likely requiring more proactive use of reserve funds or creative budgeting to sustain critical benefits.

On the other hand, if the administration were to appeal or resist the order, it could provoke a higher court decision on the thorny constitutional questions at play. The Anti-Deficiency Act generally bars agencies from spending money not appropriated by Congress . A court-ordered SNAP payout raises the issue: is using the contingency reserve an unauthorized new spending, or merely the execution of an already appropriated fund? The states argue it’s clearly the latter – Congress appropriated those billions precisely to ensure SNAP “operations” during emergencies . The USDA’s contrary stance introduces a novel interpretation that might be rebuked if Judge Talwani rules for the plaintiffs. Should her ruling stand, it effectively draws a line that shutdown or not, certain lifeline programs must continue using whatever financial tools Congress provided. It might also discourage the tactic of holding programs like SNAP hostage in budget negotiations, knowing courts could intervene to keep them running. Michael Coyne, a legal analyst in Boston, called the judges’ interventions “unprecedented” but rooted in the extreme consequences at stake . “This could change how shutdowns play out, by bringing the judiciary in to protect people from becoming collateral damage,” he noted.

Future government shutdowns (and many observers fear they will recur) could see this case cited as precedent if any administration tries to suspend mandatory benefits or services. It raises a profound question: where is the limit of “executive agency discretion” in a shutdown? Can an agency choose not to use available funds out of legal caution or political strategy, if doing so means harming millions? Or must it exhaust every option to fulfill its program’s mission until literally nothing is left? Judge Talwani’s impending decision may favor the latter view – that USDA must use its contingency reserve now, because Congress’s intent was to protect people from precisely this kind of funding gap . If so, that could bind not just this administration but future ones. It would signal that the courts can and will step in when an administration’s interpretation of budget law results in extreme outcomes Congress likely never intended (such as nationwide hunger).

There’s also a flip side: the administration’s defenders worry that involving courts in appropriations issues erodes separation of powers. They argue that if a judge can tell USDA to spend emergency money on SNAP, could another judge order different reallocations in a future crisis? The counterargument is that SNAP’s contingency fund is a special case – a pot created by lawmakers for emergencies – and the court is simply ensuring it’s used for its statutory purpose (feeding families during a shutdown emergency) . How this balance is struck may influence shutdown jurisprudence. At minimum, this case has already demonstrated that judicial relief in shutdowns is possible. That alone could empower states or advocacy groups to run to court faster in the next stalemate to protect vital programs, rather than assuming nothing can be done.

As of Nov. 1, millions of Americans are anxiously watching for Judge Talwani’s ruling, hopeful it will bring some reprieve. The halls of the Boston federal courthouse have seen a most unusual sight: low-income mothers, disability advocates, and even grocers’ representatives sitting in on a federal budget law hearing, because their lives and livelihoods depend on its outcome. Regardless of how swiftly benefits resume, the SNAP funding crisis of 2025 may be remembered as a turning point – one where a judge’s gavel and an engaged coalition forced the government to remember its basic obligation: “No family should go hungry because of dysfunction in Washington,” as New York’s Attorney General put it . The true impact of this moment will be measured both in how many Americans are spared from hunger in the coming weeks, and in how our leaders handle the next shutdown to ensure we never come this close to the brink again.

This comprehensive report is the kind of in-depth journalism that dives beneath the surface of national crises to expose what others miss. If you found this analysis valuable, please consider supporting our work. Become a paid subscriber:

Help us continue shining a light on the stories that matter.