As the United States government shutdown entered its second month in November 2025, a crisis loomed for the 42 million Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to put food on the table. The deadlock in Congress over a stopgap spending bill left the Department of Agriculture (USDA) without the appropriations needed to fund SNAP, commonly known as food stamps, for November benefits. This unprecedented situation triggered a flurry of legal action, judicial orders, and public statements from the White House, all centered on a single urgent question: would millions of low-income families, seniors, and veterans still receive the food aid they depend on?
According to States Newsroom, the crisis came to a head on November 1, when Rhode Island U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. issued a decisive written order. He mandated that the USDA must immediately use congressionally approved contingency funds to provide SNAP benefits during the shutdown. Judge McConnell’s order followed an earlier oral ruling, and he left no room for ambiguity, stating, “There is no question that the congressionally approved contingency funds must be used now because of the shutdown.” He referenced explicit Congressional directives that set aside $3 billion in contingency funds through September 2026, and another $3 billion through September 2027, totaling $6 billion intended for emergencies like the current funding lapse.
But the challenge was daunting. As Roll Call reported, the cost of November’s full SNAP benefits was estimated at $8.5 to $9 billion—well beyond the $6 billion in the contingency reserve. Judge McConnell’s solution was twofold: if the administration could not fund the entire amount with existing reserves, he suggested tapping into a $23 billion fund, known as Section 32, primarily reserved for child nutrition programs but available for other uses at the USDA’s discretion. The order required the government to pay full SNAP benefits by the end of Monday, November 3, or, failing that, to distribute all $6 billion in contingency funds as partial benefits by Wednesday, November 5. The USDA was instructed to update the court on its compliance by noon on Monday.
Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani was presiding over a parallel lawsuit filed by half the states and the District of Columbia. The states argued that the Trump administration’s refusal to use the contingency fund was unlawful and would inflict severe harm on millions of Americans. In her ruling, Judge Talwani stated, “Congress has put money in an emergency fund. It’s hard for me to understand how this isn’t an emergency, when there’s no money and a lot of people needing their SNAP benefits.” She gave the administration until November 2 to decide whether to pay at least partial benefits and to explain how they would fund them—either from the contingency fund alone or with additional sources. However, she stopped short of issuing a temporary restraining order, noting that resuming payments later could still avert irreparable harm.
The legal battles reflected the immense pressure on the administration. According to BBC, President Donald Trump responded to the Rhode Island ruling with a post on Truth Social, saying, “If we are given the appropriate legal direction by the Court, it will BE MY HONOR to provide the funding … I do not want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT.” Trump’s message, echoed in court documents, indicated a willingness to comply with judicial orders but also highlighted the legal uncertainties and political tensions underlying the standoff.
The USDA, for its part, argued that it lacked both the legal authority and sufficient funds to guarantee full November payments. Administration lawyers pointed out that only $5.25 billion remained in the contingency fund, and draining it would leave the government unable to respond to future emergencies, such as natural disasters. They also warned that implementing reduced benefits would be “exceedingly difficult, highly disruptive, and delayed, requiring a reworking of every State system to recognize and set forward a reduced benefit,” as reported by Roll Call. Judge McConnell, however, dismissed these arguments, insisting that the law required full monthly benefits whenever possible, or at minimum, a reduced amount based on available funds.
For millions of SNAP recipients, the uncertainty was more than an abstract legal debate. In California alone, nearly 6,300 Cal Poly students rely on CalFresh—the state’s SNAP distribution program—for food assistance, according to Mustang News. Across the country, families, seniors, and veterans faced the prospect of empty grocery cards and unanswered questions. States scrambled to reassure residents, with some pledging to use their own funds to cover shortfalls, though the federal government warned these states they would not be reimbursed.
The stakes were high not only for individuals but for local economies. Judge McConnell emphasized in his order that ending SNAP payments “would not only harm the people, but the local economies.” The program injects billions into grocery stores and food retailers each month, and a sudden halt would ripple through communities already grappling with the effects of the shutdown. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted, even if the contingency fund were used, it would only cover about 60% of beneficiaries for a single month, leaving many in limbo and potentially causing delays in benefit reloads that could stretch for weeks.
The legal wrangling also marked a historic moment for SNAP. As Mustang News highlighted, a continued suspension of benefits would have been the first in the program’s history since its creation in 1964. Judge Talwani underscored the gravity of the situation, writing that the administration “erred in concluding” that the USDA was blocked by law from using the emergency reserves. She and Judge McConnell both concluded that Congress intended for SNAP benefits to continue, even at a reduced rate, when appropriated funds were insufficient.
Outside the courtroom, advocacy groups and local officials urged swift action. The group behind the Rhode Island lawsuit called the ruling “a lifeline for millions of families, seniors, and veterans who depend on SNAP to put food on the table,” adding, “It reaffirms a fundamental principle: no administration can use hunger as a political weapon.” The USDA declined to comment on the decisions, while Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said at a news conference, “we’re looking at all the options” regarding compliance with court orders.
As deadlines approached, experts and members of Congress warned that, regardless of the outcome, some SNAP recipients would likely experience delays due to the administrative complexities of shifting funds and reloading benefit cards. The shutdown’s impact on public health and well-being was already being felt, with state officials warning of the risk of hunger and deteriorating conditions among vulnerable populations.
With the courts, Congress, and the White House locked in a tense standoff, the fate of SNAP—and the millions who depend on it—hung in the balance. The rulings made clear that, even in the midst of political gridlock, the basic need for food security cannot be ignored, and the legal system remains a crucial backstop for the nation’s most vulnerable.
