The rulings — issued within minutes of each other on Friday by Judge Indira Talwani (Massachusetts) and Judge John McConnell (Rhode Island) — direct the administration to tap into a $6 billion (₹50,000 crore) contingency fund to ensure continued payments under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), popularly known as food stamps.
Judges order use of emergency reserves
Judge Talwani instructed the administration to report to the court by Monday on whether it will release contingency funds to provide full or partial SNAP benefits for November. She clarified that Congress intended SNAP to remain operational, even at reduced levels, during fiscal disruptions.
Criticising the government’s argument that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) lacked legal authority to use emergency reserves during a funding lapse, Talwani said the administration had made an “error in conclusion.”
Earlier, the USDA had announced that SNAP benefits would cease in November, claiming that “the well has run dry.” On average, a family of four receives $715 a month, or about $6 per person per day, through the programme.
SNAP faces severe funding gap
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), even if the contingency fund is released, it would cover only 60% of recipients for one month, as monthly SNAP costs hover between $8.5–9 billion.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins had earlier said she intended to reserve the funds for natural disasters or emergencies, not government shutdowns.
However, the Massachusetts court urged the administration to explore alternative funding sources, such as reallocating money from other federal programs — a step previously taken to pay US military salaries earlier this month.
Rhode Island court backs citizens’ plea
Judge John McConnell, ruling in a separate case filed by several cities and NGOs, declared the administration’s suspension of food aid “unlawful.”
He said the move would cause “irreparable harm” and spread “fear and uncertainty” among millions of families struggling to afford food.
The plaintiffs hailed the ruling as “a lifeline for millions of families, seniors, and veterans,” adding that it reinforced the idea that “no administration can weaponize hunger for political ends.”
White House silent as shutdown drags on
Neither the White House nor the USDA commented on the twin rulings, while the Office of Management and Budget also declined to respond.
Before the verdicts, Rollins had said the administration was “considering all options” to comply if the courts ordered the release of funds.
Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats continue to blame each other for the prolonged budget deadlock, as the government shutdown nears the two-month mark with no resolution in sight.
