BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Boston on Thursday challenged the Trump administration’s argument that SNAP benefits could be stopped for the first time in the history of the food assistance program. government shutdown.
Public hearings are underway on requests for continued funding from 25 Democratic-led states. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani told lawyers that if the government can’t afford the program, there is a process to follow, rather than simply cutting off all benefits. “This action involves finding a fair way to reduce benefits,” said Talwani, who was appointed to the court by former President Barack Obama.
The hearing comes two days before the U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to freeze payments to the government. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program The company said it was unable to continue providing funding due to the closure.
The program is used by about 1 in 8 Americans and is an important part of the nation’s social safety net. Information was received in October that there would be casualties due to the closure on November 1st. state, food bank And SNAP recipients are scrambling to find ways to put food on the table. Some states said they would spend money to continue their versions of the program.
The program costs about $8 billion per month.
AP Audio: Judge to consider request to force government to continue funding SNAP food assistance despite government shutdown
Senate Minority Leader John Thune said he opposes Democrats’ request for a temporary solution to the food aid issue. ((Due to the government shutdown, food aid for Americans could expire this weekend.))
Get the latest news from AP.
continue
The administration said it was not allowed to use the roughly $5 billion emergency fund set aside for the program, and rescinded a USDA plan before the shutdown that said the money would be used to continue operating SNAP. Democratic state attorneys general and the governors of 25 states and the District of Columbia, who objected to the administration’s plan, argued that not only could the money be used, but that it should be. He also said a separate fund of about $23 billion could be established.
They asked for funding to continue only within their jurisdiction, but the judge suggested any ruling would apply nationwide.
The plaintiffs argued in their lawsuit that the failure to maintain SNAP funds was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, and caused irreparable harm. They also said cutting benefits would “cause a deterioration in the public health and welfare” of recipients, and that the state would pay for it.
“The suspension of SNAP benefits will leave the nutritional needs of millions of school-age children in Plaintiff states unmet,” the plaintiffs wrote. “Hungry children have a harder time paying attention, behaving, and learning in school. States will need to commit additional national resources, including health care costs and additional education resources, to address these challenges.”
Plaintiffs also claimed that more than 100,000 merchants in the state that rely on SNAP recipients would be harmed.
“Based on information and belief, as the Thanksgiving holiday approaches, many of these retailers will purchase more food and inventory to meet holiday demand,” they wrote. “Without SNAP funds, SNAP recipients would not be able to visit retail stores as often, causing significant revenue losses, increased food waste, and negative impacts on Plaintiff countries’ overall economies.”
Federal lawyers argued that the plaintiffs wanted full dispersal of SNAP benefits, which would be a “clear violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, a criminal law that prohibits the United States from assuming such obligations without diversion.”
“Even assuming that USDA had the discretion to reallocate these funds, the question of how to allocate limited funds among multiple critical safety net programs in the event of funding shortfalls is a matter that USDA has the authority to decide, not federal courts, and certainly not plaintiffs,” the government wrote.
They also argued that there wasn’t enough money set aside to cover November and that a court could force the Department of Agriculture to move SNAP-dedicated funds from the Child Nutrition Program, which would raise “dire concerns.”
“In short, simply fully funding the SNAP program without diversion was not an option,” they wrote.
It was not immediately clear how quickly beneficiaries could reload the debit cards they use to buy groceries after the ruling. This process often takes 1-2 weeks.
To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a family of four’s net income must not exceed the federal poverty line of approximately $31,000 per year. According to the complaint, SNAP provided assistance to 41 million people last year, nearly two-thirds of whom were families with children.
___
Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, New Jersey.
