Judge orders USDA to pay SNAP benefits during shutdown

WINDOW ROCK

A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reconsider its decision to suspend Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, ruling that the agency misinterpreted federal law and must explore using existing funds to keep food aid flowing to millions of Americans – including Native families who rely on the program.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued the decision Thursday in response to a lawsuit filed by Massachusetts and several other states seeking to block the USDA’s Nov. 1, halt of SNAP benefits. The agency had announced the suspension after Congress failed to approve new funding for the 2026 fiscal year.

Talwani found that the USDA’s action was “contrary to law” and that the agency must use the $6 billion in contingency funds Congress set aside in 2024 for emergencies. She gave the USDA until Monday, Nov. 3, to decide whether it will authorize at least reduced benefits for November or tap other existing USDA accounts to cover the gap.

“Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action and are likely to succeed on their claim that Defendants’ suspension of SNAP benefits is unlawful,” Talwani wrote. “Defendants are statutorily mandated to use the previously appropriated SNAP contingency reserve when necessary.”

The case, Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, stems from the USDA’s Oct. 24 directive to states to suspend all November SNAP allotments during the ongoing government shutdown. The agency claimed it could not use contingency funds to cover the lapse in appropriations.

The suspension threatened to cut off food benefits for more than 42 million Americans, including tens of thousands of Native households that depend on SNAP to supplement limited food access on reservations.

Talwani emphasized that the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 requires assistance “to all eligible households,” meaning the USDA cannot suspend aid entirely while funds remain available.

The court ruled that the contingency reserve, $6 billion appropriated through 2026, must be used to “carry out program operations.” If the funds prove insufficient, Talwani said, the law allows reduced benefits rather than a complete cutoff.

Massachusetts and other states argued that halting SNAP would overwhelm local and state food programs. The court agreed, finding that the USDA’s actions created “a substantial risk that SNAP recipients will need to rely on, and potentially overwhelm, existing state resources and services.”

Tribal governments were not formal parties to the case, but Native communities are among those most affected. On the Navajo Nation, roughly one-third of households depend on SNAP benefits to help feed their families. Tribal leaders have warned that even a short-term suspension could lead to food shortages in remote communities.

The ruling gives the USDA flexibility to draw from contingency and discretionary funds, including Section 32 accounts established under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, to prevent widespread hunger.

“Where there are at present no new appropriations for fiscal year 2026, this contingency reserve, which Congress specifically appropriated for use when funding is ‘necessary to carry out program operations,’ is available to USDA and must be deployed,” Talwani wrote.

SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program, is one of the largest federal anti-hunger programs and a critical safety net for Native families in rural and reservation areas where food deserts and unemployment persist.

Talwani noted that suspending benefits while money is still available would mark a first in the program’s 60-year history. Even temporary disruptions, she said, would “undoubtedly result in substantial harm” to families who rely on monthly EBT distributions for groceries and basic nutrition.

For tribal communities, the ruling could prevent a sharp increase in food insecurity as winter approaches. Native advocates said the decision reaffirms that federal agencies cannot abandon treaty and trust responsibilities to tribal citizens during political gridlock in Washington.

The court’s order remains under review. The USDA must inform the court by Monday whether it will authorize full or reduced benefits for November and explain how it plans to use available funds.

If the agency complies, benefits could resume within days. If it delays, the case could set a precedent for how federal agencies must use contingency funds to sustain essential programs during government shutdowns.

U.S. Representative Teresa Leger Fernández told the Navajo Times on Friday that it shouldn’t take a court ruling for the Trump administration to agree to feed Americans in need.

“The courts agree: No matter how hard he tries, Trump cannot use hunger as a political tool – it’s illegal and cruel,” Rep. Leger Fernández said. “Republicans in Congress may not stand up against Trump, but Democratic states and the courts continue to do so.”

The Navajo Times reached out to the president’s office and the speaker’s office requesting comment. Neither office responded.

Get instant access to this story by purchasing one of our many e-edition subscriptions HERE at our Navajo Times Store.

---