In the waning days of October 2025, a high-stakes legal battle unfolded in a Boston federal courtroom, capturing the attention of millions of Americans reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). With the government shutdown dragging on and funding for the nation’s primary food aid program poised to dry up, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani found herself at the center of a crisis that threatened to leave nearly 42 million people without crucial monthly benefits.
The Trump administration’s plan to suspend SNAP payments for November, citing a lack of appropriated funds, was met with fierce resistance from Democratic officials representing 25 states and Washington, D.C. As reported by the Associated Press, the lawsuit filed on October 28, 2025, argued that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was legally obligated to tap into emergency reserves to keep the program afloat, especially as the shutdown neared its one-month mark.
Judge Talwani, appointed by former President Barack Obama, expressed deep skepticism about the administration’s stance during a hearing on October 30. She pressed federal lawyers on why the government was refusing to use contingency funds—about $5.3 billion set aside for precisely such emergencies—when so many Americans faced food insecurity. “Right now, Congress has put money in an emergency fund for an emergency, and it’s hard for me to understand how this isn’t an emergency when there’s no money and a lot of people are needing their SNAP benefits,” Talwani remarked from the bench, as reported by CNN.
The judge’s pointed questions underscored the gravity of the situation. SNAP, which costs around $8.5 to $9 billion per month and serves about 1 in 8 Americans, is a cornerstone of the nation’s social safety net. In 2024, the program supported approximately 41.7 million people, with federal spending totaling $99.8 billion and an average monthly benefit of $187.20 per recipient, according to USDA data cited by Nexstar Media.
Yet, as the shutdown ground on, the USDA maintained that it could not legally use the contingency fund to pay November benefits, a reversal from previous guidance. The department argued that the fund could only be accessed in the wake of unforeseen events such as natural disasters—not government shutdowns. In a memo issued the previous week, the USDA insisted, “contingency funds are not legally available to cover regular benefits.”
This abrupt shift left states scrambling. On October 10, the USDA sent a letter ordering states to halt the process of issuing November benefits, effectively freezing the program. According to court filings, states typically transmit SNAP enrollment data to vendors each month so that funds can be loaded onto recipients’ cards. With the USDA directive, these processes ground to a halt, and states, food banks, and SNAP recipients were left in limbo.
The Democratic-led states and D.C. countered that not only could the contingency fund be used—it must be. They pointed to a since-deleted USDA shutdown plan from September 30, 2025, which stated the department was mandated by Congress to use the reserve during funding lapses. The lawsuit filed in Massachusetts asked the court to compel the USDA to utilize these funds, warning that failure to do so would “fundamentally undermine” trust between recipients and the states and saddle local governments and food banks with untenable costs.
Judge Talwani appeared sympathetic to these arguments. “If you don’t have money, you tighten your belt,” she said in court, as reported by the Associated Press. “You are not going to make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game someplace.” She also emphasized that federal law required an equitable reduction in benefits—rather than a full suspension—when funds were insufficient. “What Congress was trying to do is protect the American people,” she noted. “The idea that we’re going to do the absolutely most drastic thing, which is that there’s not just less money but no money, seems the farthest thing from what Congress intended.”
The government’s lawyers pushed back, arguing that dispersing partial payments would require complex recalculations and violate laws barring expenditures without congressional appropriation. They also warned that such recalculations could take weeks, delaying aid even further. But Talwani was unmoved, stating that the steps involve “finding an equitable way of reducing benefits.” She acknowledged, however, that even if emergency funds were used, some SNAP recipients would likely receive reduced or delayed payments for November.
As CNN detailed, the judge indicated she would issue a ruling later that day and that it would likely apply nationwide, not just to the states that brought the suit. “It wouldn’t be fair to treat recipients differently depending on which state they live in,” she observed. That approach, however, could defy the intentions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has recently limited—but not outright banned—nationwide injunctions.
The stakes of the case were enormous. SNAP, which requires a family of four to have a net income below about $31,000 per year to qualify in 2025, is a lifeline for families with children—nearly two-thirds of recipients fall into this category. The plaintiffs argued that any interruption in benefits would harm public health, hinder children’s ability to learn, drive up government healthcare costs, and hurt retailers dependent on SNAP payments.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s approach drew comparisons to previous shutdowns. During the record-long impasse in 2018-2019, the USDA initially warned that benefits would run dry, only to later find a workaround that allowed payments to continue. This time, the administration shifted $300 million to keep the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) afloat for October, but insisted it could not do the same for SNAP without explicit congressional approval.
As the court weighed its decision, the uncertainty rippled through communities nationwide. Some states considered using their own funds to keep SNAP or similar programs running, while food banks braced for a surge in demand. The possibility that nearly 42 million Americans could lose their food assistance overnight—many of them children, seniors, and people with disabilities—loomed large.
Judge Talwani’s ruling, expected later on October 30, would determine whether emergency funds could be deployed to avert a humanitarian crisis. Her words captured the urgency: “It’s hard for me to understand that this is not an emergency, when there is no money and a lot of people are needing their SNAP benefits.”
As the legal and political wrangling continued, millions of Americans waited anxiously for clarity on whether they would have the means to put food on the table in the days ahead.
