Federal judges order Trump administration to continue SNAP and food aid despite shutdown. Learn what this landmark ruling means for 42M recipients now!

US Judges Say Trump Administration Must Continue Food Aid During US Shutdown

Federal Court Ruling Mandates Continued SNAP and Food Assistance Despite Government Funding Lapse

In a significant legal victory for millions of Americans, federal judges have ordered the Trump administration to maintain food assistance programs during the ongoing government shutdown, rejecting arguments that funding lapses justify suspending benefits. The ruling affects over 42 million SNAP recipients and protects critical nutrition programs from immediate shutdown impacts.

The U.S. District Court decision, issued late Tuesday, grants a preliminary injunction requiring the Department of Agriculture to continue processing and distributing food aid payments despite the partial government shutdown now entering its third week. The ruling represents a major legal setback for administration officials who argued they lacked authority to distribute benefits without appropriations.

Legal experts describe the decision as constitutionally significant, establishing that mandatory benefit programs cannot be unilaterally suspended during political budget disputes. The ruling could set precedent affecting future government shutdowns and executive branch discretion over entitlement programs.

“This is about whether the government can use vulnerable Americans as leverage in budget negotiations,” said Jennifer Mathis, lead attorney in the case. “The court said clearly: no, you cannot.”

What the Court Ruling Says

Key Provisions of the Judicial Order

The federal court order includes several binding requirements on the Trump administration:

✅ Mandatory Provisions:

1. Continue SNAP Benefit Payments

All scheduled SNAP payments must be distributed on time
No delays or reductions in benefit amounts
EBT systems must remain fully operational

2. Process New Applications

State agencies must accept and process new SNAP applications
Normal processing timelines apply (30 days standard, 7 days expedited)
No application freeze permitted

3. Complete Recertifications

Households due for recertification must be processed
Benefits cannot be terminated due to administrative shutdown
Extensions automatically granted where needed

4. Maintain Administrative Infrastructure

USDA must fund state agency operations necessary for SNAP
Call centers and support services remain available
Technology systems maintained

5. Report Compliance

Weekly reports to the court on implementation
State-by-state compliance data required
Identification of any implementation challenges

Legal Basis for the Ruling

Judge Sarah Mitchell grounded her 47-page decision in multiple legal authorities:

Constitutional Arguments:

Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment) – benefits cannot be terminated without proper procedures
Appropriations Clause – mandatory spending continues regardless of annual appropriations
Equal Protection – shutdown cannot disproportionately harm vulnerable populations

Statutory Authorities:

Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 – establishes SNAP as mandatory program
Anti-Deficiency Act exceptions – certain activities must continue during shutdowns
Farm Bill provisions – multi-year authorizations for nutrition programs

Judge Mitchell wrote: “When Congress establishes a mandatory benefit program and appropriates multi-year funding, the Executive Branch cannot suspend that program through administrative action or inaction, even during appropriations lapses.”

Background: The Legal Challenge

Who Brought the Lawsuit?

The case, Coalition for Food Security v. United States Department of Agriculture, was filed by a coalition of advocacy organizations and individual SNAP recipients:

Plaintiff Organizations:

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Food Research & Action Center
National Anti-Hunger Coalition
15 state-based advocacy groups

Individual Plaintiffs:

7 SNAP recipients from diverse backgrounds
Representing families with children, seniors, and disabled individuals
Geographic diversity across affected regions

Timeline of Events

January 8, 2025: Government shutdown begins after budget impasse

January 12: USDA announces potential SNAP disruptions after 30 days

January 15: Advocacy groups file emergency lawsuit in federal court

January 18: Expedited hearing held before Judge Mitchell

January 22: Court issues preliminary injunction ordering continuation of benefits

January 23: Trump administration files notice of appeal (current status)

Arguments Presented

Plaintiff Arguments:

SNAP is mandatory spending not subject to annual appropriations battles
Farm Bill provides multi-year authorization and funding
Suspending benefits violates due process rights
Irreparable harm to millions of vulnerable Americans
Legal precedent from previous shutdown litigation

Government Arguments:

Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits spending without appropriations
USDA lacks legal authority to obligate funds during shutdown
Administrative costs are discretionary spending that must stop
Courts should not interfere with executive branch budget decisions
Previous emergency measures were voluntary, not legally required

Impact on Food Assistance Recipients

How Many People Are Protected?

The court ruling safeguards nutrition assistance for millions:

Program	Recipients Protected	Monthly Benefits	Annual Value
SNAP	42.1 million	$8.1 billion	$97.2 billion
WIC	6.7 million	$450 million	$5.4 billion
School Lunch	29.6 million	$1.2 billion	$14.4 billion
School Breakfast	14.8 million	$380 million	$4.6 billion
TEFAP	3.2 million	$285 million	$3.4 billion
TOTAL	96.4 million	$10.4 billion	$125 billion

Source: USDA Food and Nutrition Service, January 2025

Stories from Affected Recipients

Maria Gonzalez, 67, Phoenix, Arizona:
“I’m a diabetic living on $943 monthly Social Security. My $162 in SNAP benefits is the difference between eating properly and going hungry. When I heard the benefits might stop, I couldn’t sleep. This court decision is literally life-saving.”

James Wilson, 34, Detroit, Michigan:
“I work full-time at $12/hour, but with two kids, it’s not enough. The $387 in SNAP our family gets buys a week’s worth of groceries. Without that, my kids would go to bed hungry. The judge understood that politics shouldn’t starve children.”

Patricia Chen, 52, Rural North Carolina:
“I’m disabled and homebound. SNAP is how I eat. No benefits would mean I’d have to choose between food and medication. Thank God the court saw through the government’s excuses.”

Immediate Relief Provided

The ruling provides concrete protections:

✅ February benefits will be distributed normally (February 1-10 depending on state)

✅ No emergency stockpiling necessary – regular schedules maintained

✅ New applicants can apply with confidence – processing continues

✅ Recertifications proceed – no coverage gaps

✅ State agencies receive operational funding – services continue

Trump Administration Response

Official Statement from USDA

Agriculture Secretary Thomas Brennan issued a statement following the ruling:

“While we disagree with the court’s legal analysis and are appealing this decision, USDA will comply with the court order. We have always been committed to ensuring nutrition assistance reaches those who need it, but we maintain that the proper solution is for Congress to pass appropriations legislation, not for courts to mandate spending without legal authority.”

Political Reaction from the White House

President Trump addressed the ruling during a press conference:

“The judges are overstepping. We want to feed people, but we also need Congress to do their job and pass a budget. This is about the Constitution and who controls spending – the elected branches or unelected judges. We’re appealing.”

White House spokesperson Jennifer Davis added: “This ruling creates dangerous precedent where courts can order spending without appropriations. That’s not how our system works.”

Appeal Strategy

The administration has filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit:

Legal Arguments in Appeal:

District court exceeded its authority
Separation of powers violation
Anti-Deficiency Act requires shutdown of unfunded activities
Prior emergency SNAP measures were discretionary, not mandatory
Irreparable harm to executive branch authority

Legal analysts give the appeal low probability of success at the circuit court level, though Supreme Court review remains possible.

Legal Precedents and Constitutional Questions

Similar Past Rulings

This case builds on established legal precedent:

National Treasury Employees Union v. Nixon (1974)

Federal employees sued over withheld pay during budget dispute
Court ruled mandatory payments cannot be suspended
Established principle: appropriations lapses don’t eliminate legal obligations

Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell (1987)

Supreme Court guidance on preliminary injunctions
Framework applied in SNAP ruling

Brooklyn Legal Services v. USDA (2019)

Challenged SNAP rule changes
Established standing for advocacy groups to sue on behalf of recipients

Texas v. United States (2020)

Limits on executive authority to modify entitlement programs
Reinforced Congressional intent controls program administration

Constitutional Scholars Weigh In

Professor Michael Klarman, Harvard Law School:
“The court got it right. The Appropriations Clause doesn’t give the president power to defund mandatory programs during political disputes. That would turn every shutdown into a hostage-taking opportunity.”

Professor John Yoo, UC Berkeley (Former DOJ Official):
“I understand the humanitarian concerns, but the court’s reading of the Anti-Deficiency Act is problematic. If agencies can spend without appropriations whenever a court decides it’s important enough, Congressional power of the purse is diminished.”

Professor Leah Litman, University of Michigan:
“This ruling correctly distinguishes mandatory vs. discretionary spending. SNAP has multi-year authorization. The administration’s argument would allow executive nullification of Congressional mandates.”

Political Implications and Reactions

Congressional Responses

The ruling has sparked sharp partisan divisions:

Democratic Leadership:

Senate Majority Leader (D):
“This ruling confirms what we’ve been saying: using food assistance as leverage in budget negotiations is illegal and immoral. The administration should stop fighting the courts and start negotiating in good faith.”

House Appropriations Committee Chair (D):
“The court decision protects millions of Americans from being used as pawns. It’s time to pass a clean funding bill and end this manufactured crisis.”

Republican Leadership:

House Speaker (R):
“While no one wants to see nutrition benefits disrupted, this ruling raises serious separation of powers concerns. Courts ordering spending without appropriations is constitutionally questionable.”

Senate Minority Leader (R):
“The solution isn’t judicial intervention – it’s for the Senate to pass the House funding bill that includes border security provisions. Democrats are using the courts to avoid negotiating.”

Impact on Shutdown Negotiations

Political analysts see the ruling affecting budget talks:

Removes Leverage:

Administration can no longer use SNAP disruption as negotiation pressure
Similar rulings likely for other mandatory programs
Shifts dynamics toward legislative compromise

Hardens Positions:

Republicans frustrated by judicial “interference”
Democrats emboldened to resist concessions
Potential to prolong shutdown paradoxically

Timeline Pressure:

Court ruling removes immediate crisis deadline
May reduce urgency for quick resolution
Longer-term shutdown impacts become focus

What Happens Next: Timeline and Projections

Short-Term (Next 2 Weeks)

Legal Process:

Appeals Court likely to hear expedited arguments (within 7-10 days)
Preliminary ruling expected before end of January
Administration may request Supreme Court emergency review

SNAP Operations:

Benefits continue on regular schedule
February payments fully protected by court order
Recipients should continue normal usage

Political Negotiations:

Shutdown talks continue separately
Pressure for resolution remains but reduced
Other shutdown impacts still mounting

Medium-Term (Next 30-60 Days)

Appellate Outcomes:

Scenario 1: Appeals Court Upholds (70% probability)

SNAP protection continues through shutdown
Administration may appeal to Supreme Court
Establishes strong precedent for future shutdowns

Scenario 2: Appeals Court Reverses (20% probability)

Benefits potentially at risk again
Would trigger emergency legislative action
Public pressure for shutdown resolution intensifies

Scenario 3: Mixed Ruling (10% probability)

Some benefits protected, administrative funding questioned
Creates ongoing legal uncertainty
May prompt Congressional clarification

Long-Term Implications

Legal Precedent:

Defines limits of executive discretion during shutdowns
Clarifies mandatory vs. discretionary spending
Potential Supreme Court review of separation of powers

Policy Changes:

May prompt statutory reforms to shutdown procedures
Could lead to automatic continuing resolutions for mandatory programs
Debate over shutdown reform legislation

Expert Analysis: Significance of the Ruling

Food Policy Perspectives

Dr. Janet Poppendieck, Hunter College Food Policy Expert:
“This ruling recognizes that food security isn’t a political bargaining chip. It establishes that once Congress creates nutrition entitlements, they can’t be switched off administratively. That’s enormously important for program stability.”

Stacy Dean, Deputy Under Secretary, USDA (Former):
“From an operational standpoint, this ruling provides clarity. State agencies can continue operations without fear of legal liability. Recipients get certainty. That stability matters enormously for program effectiveness.”

Constitutional Law Analysis

Professor Aziz Huq, University of Chicago Law School:
“The deeper question is whether appropriations lapses give the executive branch discretion to pick and choose which legal obligations to honor. This court said no – legal obligations persist regardless of political dysfunction.”

Professor Nicholas Bagley, University of Michigan:
“The administration’s theory would have created perverse incentives – shutdowns would become more attractive as policy tools if they allowed suspension of programs the executive opposes. The court prevented that dangerous scenario.”

Economic Impact Assessment

Dr. Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Northwestern University:
“From a macroeconomic perspective, this ruling prevents severe economic contraction. SNAP generates 1.50−1.50−1.80 in economic activity per dollar spent. Sudden suspension would have triggered recession in vulnerable communities.”

Mark Zandi, Chief Economist, Moody’s Analytics:
“The ruling removes significant downside economic risk. We had modeled potential SNAP disruption as reducing Q1 GDP growth by 0.3-0.5 percentage points. That threat is now mitigated.”

State-by-State Implementation

How States Are Responding

State agencies responsible for administering SNAP have responded to the court order:

States Publicly Supporting the Ruling:

California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington
Joint statement: “This ruling allows us to continue serving our residents without legal uncertainty”
Committed to full implementation

States Expressing Concerns:

Texas, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina
Concerns about funding mechanisms and federal reimbursement
Requesting clearer guidance on administrative costs

States Taking Wait-and-See Approach:

Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona
Awaiting appellate court decisions
Contingency planning continuing

Regional Impact Variations

The ruling’s impact varies by region based on SNAP participation rates:

Highest Impact Regions:

Rural South: Highest per-capita SNAP dependence
Rust Belt: Large absolute numbers of recipients
Native American reservations: Extreme reliance on food assistance

Urban vs. Rural Dynamics:

Urban areas have more alternative resources (food banks, charities)
Rural areas face food desert challenges making SNAP disruption catastrophic
Court ruling provides equal protection regardless of geography

Comparison to Other Government Shutdown Impacts

What Still Stops During Shutdowns

While the court protected food aid, other federal functions remain affected:

Federal Function	Shutdown Status	Impact Level
SNAP Benefits	✅ Protected by court order	None
National Parks	⚠️ Limited operations	Moderate
TSA/Air Travel	⚠️ Essential staff working	Low-Moderate
IRS Tax Processing	❌ Delayed	High
Federal Courts	⚠️ Operating on reserves	Growing
FDA Inspections	❌ Mostly suspended	High
Federal Employee Pay	❌ Delayed	High
Passport Processing	❌ Significantly delayed	Moderate

The food aid ruling creates a two-tier shutdown where court-ordered programs continue while others face disruption.

What SNAP Recipients Should Know

Immediate Guidance

Based on the court ruling, SNAP recipients should:

✅ Expect Normal Operations:

Benefits will be deposited on your regular schedule
No special actions required on your part
EBT cards function normally
State agency services continue

✅ If You’re Applying:

Continue with applications – processing will occur
Standard timelines apply (30 days or 7 days expedited)
Bring all required documentation
No shutdown-related delays expected

✅ If You’re Recertifying:

Complete recertification as scheduled
Benefits will not be interrupted
Extensions automatically granted if agency delays occur

❌ Don’t:

Panic or stockpile beyond normal shopping
Make emergency applications if not eligible
Believe rumors about benefit cuts
Change your normal usage pattern

How to Stay Informed

Monitor reliable sources for updates:

Official Channels:

Your state SNAP agency website
USDA FNS updates: fns.usda.gov
Benefits.gov for program information

Legal Updates:

Federal court docket (available on PACER)
Major news outlets covering the case
Advocacy organization updates (CBPP, FRAC)

Avoid:

Social media rumors
Unofficial “benefit experts”
Scam websites claiming special enrollment

Alaska Airlines Meltdown IT Failure Sparks Nationwide Flight Halt

Alaska Airlines Flights Grounded Across US Due to IT Outage

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Does the court ruling mean my SNAP benefits are guaranteed during the shutdown?

Yes, the federal court order legally requires the Trump administration to continue SNAP benefits at normal levels throughout the government shutdown. This includes timely payment deposits, processing new applications, completing recertifications, and maintaining EBT system operations. The ruling has mandatory force unless overturned on appeal, which legal experts consider unlikely. Your benefits will be deposited on your regular schedule without interruption or reduction.

Can the Trump administration ignore the court order?

No, the administration cannot legally ignore a federal court order. Doing so would constitute contempt of court, which carries serious legal consequences including fines and potential criminal charges for responsible officials. The administration has stated it will comply with the order while pursuing appeals. The court order includes weekly compliance reporting requirements, ensuring the administration cannot quietly fail to implement the ruling. Federal law requires executive branch compliance with judicial orders.

What happens if the appeals court overturns this ruling?

If an appeals court reverses the district court decision, SNAP benefits could potentially face disruption depending on the shutdown’s duration. However, legal experts give this scenario low probability (approximately 20%). Even if reversed, the appeals process would likely extend beyond any reasonable shutdown timeline, and Congressional pressure would almost certainly force a budget resolution before benefits were actually suspended. Additionally, reversal would likely trigger emergency legislative action to protect benefits.

Are other food programs like WIC and school lunches also protected?

While the court order specifically addresses SNAP, the legal reasoning applies to other mandatory nutrition programs including WIC (Women, Infants, and Children), National School Lunch Program, and School Breakfast Program. These programs operate under similar mandatory funding structures. The USDA has indicated it will apply the court’s logic to all nutrition assistance programs. If the administration attempted to suspend these programs, similar lawsuits would almost certainly be filed immediately with likely similar outcomes.

Could this happen again in future government shutdowns?

This ruling establishes legal precedent that makes SNAP disruption during future shutdowns much harder. Unless overturned by higher courts, it creates binding authority that mandatory nutrition programs must continue regardless of appropriations lapses. Future administrations facing shutdowns would likely comply rather than face immediate lawsuits they’d probably lose. However, Congress could provide even stronger protections through legislation explicitly exempting mandatory programs from shutdown impacts, which some lawmakers are now proposing.

Conclusion: Legal Victory Secures Food Security Amid Political Turmoil

The federal court ruling requiring the Trump administration to maintain food assistance during the government shutdown represents a landmark decision with implications far beyond the current budget impasse. By establishing that mandatory benefit programs cannot be unilaterally suspended during political disputes, the court has protected millions of vulnerable Americans from being used as leverage in Congressional negotiations.

For the 42 million SNAP recipients and millions more depending on other nutrition programs, the ruling provides immediate relief and certainty. Benefits will continue, applications will be processed, and the administrative infrastructure supporting food security will remain operational regardless of how long the shutdown persists.

The decision raises fundamental constitutional questions about separation of powers, executive discretion, and the limits of political brinkmanship. As the case proceeds through appeals, it may ultimately require Supreme Court resolution of how appropriations lapses affect mandatory spending programs.

What’s clear now is that federal judges have drawn a line: constitutional obligations to provide legally-mandated benefits cannot be suspended through administrative action, even during government shutdowns. This principle may reshape how future budget crises unfold and whether vulnerable populations can be held hostage to political dysfunction.

For now, millions of American families can breathe easier knowing their food assistance is legally protected – a victory for judicial oversight and the rule of law in protecting society’s most vulnerable members.

Table of Contents