On October 31, 2025, in a pair of nearly simultaneous rulings, two federal judges ordered the Trump administration to continue payments for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) during the ongoing government shutdown by tapping into emergency reserve funds. The decisions, handed down in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have brought a measure of relief to millions of Americans who rely on SNAP—better known as food stamps—but have also left lingering uncertainty about the program’s immediate future and the timing of November’s benefits.
SNAP, which serves about one in eight Americans and costs roughly $8 billion per month, is a cornerstone of the nation’s social safety net. According to the Associated Press, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had planned to freeze payments starting November 1, 2025, citing the inability to continue funding the program due to the shutdown. This move would have left millions of low-income families, seniors, and veterans scrambling to afford groceries, forcing many to choose between food and other essentials like rent or medical bills.
The legal battle began when Democratic state attorneys general and governors from 25 states, along with the District of Columbia, challenged the Trump administration’s plan to pause SNAP payments. Their argument: the administration was legally obligated to keep the program running and could do so by using a contingency fund of about $5 billion, as well as an additional fund containing approximately $23 billion. The administration, however, insisted that it was not permitted to use the contingency funds, reversing its earlier stance before the shutdown when the USDA had indicated those reserves would be tapped if necessary.
In Providence, Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell ruled from the bench in a case brought by cities and nonprofits that the government must use at least the contingency funds to fund SNAP. He also required an update on the government’s progress by Monday, November 3, 2025. Importantly, Judge McConnell ordered that all previous waivers of work requirements for SNAP recipients—such as older adults, veterans, and others—must continue to be honored during the shutdown. This point was particularly significant, as the USDA had recently terminated these waivers, raising concerns among advocates and beneficiaries alike.
Meanwhile, in Boston, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a written opinion calling the USDA’s suspension of SNAP payments “unlawful.” She ordered the federal government to inform the court by the same Monday deadline whether it would use the emergency reserve funds to provide reduced or full benefits for November. Her ruling clarified that the contingency funds must be used as necessary to ensure the continuation of SNAP payments. “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,” Judge Talwani wrote. “This court has now clarified that Defendants are required to use those Contingency Funds as necessary for the SNAP program.”
Despite the victories in court, the path forward remains murky. The judges gave the administration discretion to fund SNAP either partially or fully for November, and the process of reloading benefits onto SNAP debit cards can take a week or more in many states. This means that, regardless of the rulings, millions of people will face delays in receiving their benefits. As of October 31, the administration had not indicated whether it would appeal the decisions.
The stakes are enormous. In 2024, SNAP provided assistance to 41 million people, nearly two-thirds of whom were families with children. To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a family of four’s net income after certain expenses cannot exceed the federal poverty line—about $31,000 per year. For many recipients, even a short-term interruption or reduction in benefits can have dire consequences. Kristle Johnson, a full-time nursing student and mother of three in Florida, described her frustration: “Now I have to deal with someone who wants to get rid of everything I have to keep my family afloat until I can better myself.”
Food banks and state agencies across the country had been bracing for the worst. Cynthia Kirkhart, CEO of Facing Hunger Food Bank in Huntington, West Virginia, said her organization and the pantries it serves in Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia would keep extra hours over the weekend, knowing that many people’s benefits, which usually arrive at the start of the month, would be delayed. “What we know, unless the administration is magical, is nothing is going to happen tomorrow,” she told the Associated Press.
Advocates who had been sounding the alarm for weeks about the impending SNAP cutoff expressed cautious relief after the court rulings. Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, which was a plaintiff in the Rhode Island case, said, “Thousands of nonprofit food banks, pantries and other organizations across the country can avoid the impossible burden that would have resulted if SNAP benefits had been halted.” Still, many acknowledged that the win might be temporary and incomplete, especially if the administration decides to appeal or if Congress fails to act.
The political blame game continued in Washington. At a press conference with House Speaker Mike Johnson, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, whose department runs SNAP, insisted that the contingency funds in question would not cover the program’s costs for long. She blamed Democrats for the shutdown, accusing them of a “disgusting dereliction of duty” for refusing to end their Senate filibuster as they held out for an extension of health care funds. A recent push in Congress to continue SNAP funding during the shutdown had failed, leaving the courts as the last bulwark against a complete cutoff.
President Trump, for his part, took to social media to blast congressional Democrats for the shutdown, but he also signaled a willingness to comply with the court orders—provided he received the “appropriate legal direction.” “If we are given the appropriate legal direction by the Court, it will BE MY HONOR to provide the funding,” Trump posted.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat and the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said the rulings confirmed what Democrats had been arguing all along. “The administration is choosing not to feed Americans in need, despite knowing that it is legally required to do so,” she said.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, summed up the relief felt by many advocates: “The court’s ruling protects millions of families, seniors, and veterans from being used as leverage in a political fight and upholds the principle that no one in America should go hungry.”
With the November benefits still in limbo and the threat of future interruptions looming, states and food banks have announced increased or expedited funding and are exploring alternative ways to load SNAP benefits onto debit cards. For now, the court rulings have averted an immediate crisis, but the underlying issues—political gridlock, legal ambiguity, and the fragility of the nation’s safety net—remain unresolved. The coming days will reveal whether the emergency reserves are enough to keep food on the table for millions, or if the country will face another round of uncertainty as the shutdown drags on.
