25 states, D.C. sue Trump administration to continue SNAP benefits

Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia are suing the Trump administration to force it to fund food stamps despite the ongoing government shutdown.

The states, most of which are run by Democrats, challenged the Trump administration’s position that it cannot legally access contingency funds, which would provide slightly more than half of the roughly $9 billion needed to fund the November benefits.

The lawsuit suggests the administration could tap tariff funds to pay for the remainder, but the Trump administration has said it is using those funds to pay for various child nutrition programs, including ones that provide infant formula and school lunches for low-income families.

The lawsuit asks the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts to declare illegal the suspension of food stamps set to occur on Saturday and require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to fund the program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP.

Roughly 42 million low-income Americans are enrolled in SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, and receive monthly payments from the government to buy groceries. SNAP benefits are fully funded by the federal government, which gives states some money to administer the program. 

The administration has said it doesn’t have the funds needed to continue SNAP benefits into a second month of the government shutdown and can’t legally tap a contingency fund without Congress passing a new spending bill authorizing use of that money.  

The states’ lawsuit argues that is not true, as Congress previously authorized the use of the SNAP contingency funds through September 2026. 

The federal government “has funds available to it that are sufficient to fund all, or at least a substantial portion, of November SNAP benefits,” the states, led by Massachusetts, said in their 51-page complaint. 

They also noted that SNAP benefits have never been suspended during previous government shutdowns.

The states’ lawsuit names USDA and its secretary, Brooke Rollins, as well as the White House Office of Management and Budget and its director, Russell Vought, as defendants.

USDA and OMB, when asked for comment on the lawsuit, did not address it directly, but instead put the onus on Senate Democrats to open the government to keep SNAP benefits funded.

“We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats: Continue to hold out for the far-left wing of the party or reopen the government so mothers, babies and the most vulnerable among us can receive timely WIC and SNAP allotments,” a USDA spokesperson said.

An OMB spokesperson said: “Democrats chose to shut down the government knowing full well that SNAP would soon run out of funds. It doesn’t have to be this way, and it’s sad they are using the families who rely on it as pawns.”

WIC is the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children that provides infant formula and other support to low-income mothers. The Trump administration has been using Section 32 tariff funds to keep that program afloat during the shutdown. 

Congress over the past two years has appropriated $6 billion to USDA for use as a SNAP-specific contingency fund to remain available through at least through Sept. 30, 2026, the lawsuit said. OMB spent $750 million of that earlier this month, meaning a little more than $5 million remains available. 

USDA issued a lapse of funding plan on Sept. 30 that noted the availability of the contingency funds. 

“Congressional intent is evident that SNAP’s operations should continue since the program has been provided with multiyear contingency funds that can be used for State Administrative Expenses to ensure that the State can also continue operations during a Federal Government shutdown,” the USDA plan said. “These multiyear contingency funds are also available to fund participant benefits in the event that a lapse occurs in the middle of the fiscal year.”

USDA argued the opposite in a recent memo, which the agency provided to The Washington Times on Monday. 

“SNAP contingency funds are only available to supplement regular monthly benefits when amounts have been appropriated for, but are insufficient to cover, benefits,” the memo said. “The contingency fund is not available to support FY 2026 regular benefits, because the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exists.”

The lawsuit said that assertion “is contrary to the plain text of the congressional appropriations law, which states that the reserves are for use ‘in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations’ under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.”

The claim also notes that USDA issued guidance during the 2019 shutdown that said it could use contingency funding to continue SNAP benefits, a position the Government Accountability Office later affirmed. 

Sen. John Hoeven, North Dakota Republican and chair of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees USDA’s funding, said it takes about $9 billion to cover a full month of SNAP benefits. So even if the court rules against OMB’s position that it can’t tap the contingency fund, “it wouldn’t even cover one month.”

The lawsuit said the administration could also use the Section 32 tariff fund, which had over $23 billion as of Oct. 8, “to fully cover November SNAP benefits.”

However, the USDA memo notes that money has already been transferred to continue WIC and other child nutrition programs, including the national school breakfast and lunch programs.

In addition to Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, the states party to the lawsuit are California, Arizona, Minnesota, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

Instead of Kansas, Kentucky and Pennsylvania being named directly as plaintiffs, the lawsuit names Democratic Govs. Laura Kelly, Andy Beshear and Josh Shapiro, respectively. That suggests that the Republican attorneys general in those states didn’t sign off on the lawsuit.  

Some of the plaintiff states have taken their own actions to ease the pain of the SNAP benefit suspension. 

The lawsuit cites examples of California fast-tracking $80 million in state funds for food banks that would normally be spread throughout the rest of the year and deploying its National Guard to assist food banks’ delivery of aid.

Minnesota is providing $4 million in emergency funding to the state’s food shelves, and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis has requested $10 million from the state Legislature to support food banks. 

“Suspending benefits will ultimately transfer costs to state and local governments and community organizations, as families increasingly rely on emergency services and public safety net programs, such as local food pantries,” the lawsuit argues. “Food banks, for example, are already struggling to fill a growing nutrition gap in the face of other cutbacks in nutrition assistance from the federal government.”