Trump must replenish SNAP food aid benefits, judges rule: What we know

Two judges ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump’s administration must replenish SNAP food aid benefits despite the government shutdown.

The grocery-buying ability for about 1 in 8 Americans hinged on the outcome. 

Trump must replenish SNAP food aid benefits

Big picture view:

The judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island gave the administration leeway on whether to fund the program partially or in full for November. That also brings uncertainty about how things will unfold and will delay payments for many beneficiaries whose cards would normally be recharged early in the month.

In Providence, Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell ruled from the bench in a case filed by cities and nonprofits that the program must be funded using at least the contingency funds, and he asked for an update on progress by Monday.

Along with ordering the federal government to use emergency reserves to backfill SNAP benefits, McConnell ruled that all previous work requirement waivers must continue to be honored. The USDA during the shutdown has terminated existing waivers that exempted work requirements for older adults, veterans and others.

There were similar elements in the Boston case, where U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled in a written opinion that the USDA has to pay for SNAP, calling the suspension "unlawful." She ordered the federal government to advise the court by Monday as to whether they will use the emergency reserve funds to provide reduced SNAP benefits for November or fully fund the program "using both contingency funds and additional available funds.

"Defendants’ suspension of SNAP payments was based on the erroneous conclusion that the Contingency Funds could not be used to ensure continuation of SNAP payments," she wrote. "This court has now clarified that Defendants are required to use those Contingency Funds as necessary for the SNAP program."

Dig deeper:

Even though the judge ruled that the benefits could not be suspended for the first time in SNAP's 61-year history, many beneficiaries are still likely to face delays in getting the debit cards they use to buy groceries reloaded. That process can take one to two weeks, so it's likely too late to get funds on cards in the first days of November.

At a Washington news conference Friday, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, whose department runs SNAP, said the contingency funds would not cover the cost of SNAP for long. 

Speaking at a press conference with House Speaker Mike Johnson at the Capitol, she 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.

Ruling applies nationwide

The backstory:

In a hearing in Boston Thursday on a legal challenge filed by Democratic officials from 25 states, one federal judge seemed skeptical of the administration’s argument that SNAP benefits could be halted.

Talwani told lawyers that if the government can’t afford to cover the cost, there’s a process to follow rather than simply suspending all benefits. "The steps involve finding an equitable way of reducing benefits," said Talwani, who was nominated to the court by former President Barack Obama.

At the time, Talwani seemed to be leaning toward requiring the government to put billions of dollars in emergency funds toward SNAP. That, she said, is her interpretation of what Congress intended when an agency’s funding runs out.

What they're saying:

"If you don’t have money, you tighten your belt," she said in court. "You are not going to make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game someplace."

Government lawyers said a contingency fund containing some $5 billion cannot legally be used to maintain SNAP, a program that costs about $8 billion a month. The states say it must be used for that purpose and point to more money available in a second federal account.

Talwani said her ruling would apply nationwide, not just in the states that are part of the challenge. That could defy the intentions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has limited the use of nationwide injunctions, though it hasn’t prohibited them.

A push earlier this week to continue the SNAP funding during the shutdown failed in Congress.

Americans brace for shift in getting groceries

Why you should care:

This ruling comes as states, food banks and recipients have been bracing for an abrupt shift in how low-income people can get groceries.

Friday marked 31 days since the government shut down.

The majority of 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.

RELATED: Which states will provide SNAP benefits amid shutdown? 

Advocates and beneficiaries say halting the food aid would force people to choose between buying groceries and paying other bills.

To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a family of four’s net income after certain expenses can’t exceed the federal poverty line, which is about $31,000 per year. Last year, SNAP provided assistance to 41 million people, nearly two-thirds of whom were families with children, according to the lawsuit.

Why are SNAP payments being suspended? 

What they're saying:

The Trump administration said it’s not allowed to use a contingency fund with about $5 billion in it for the program, despite an earlier plan that would have tapped the money to keep SNAP running amid the shutdown. 

The other side:

Democratic state attorneys general or governors from 25 states, as well as the District of Columbia — filed a lawsuit challenging the suspension of payments. They argue that not only could that contingency money be used, it must be. They also said a separate fund with around $23 billion could be tapped.