The courts stepped in this week and ordered the Biden administration to tap contingency funds to keep SNAP benefits flowing as the government remains shut, with two judges in separate cases demanding answers and potential action by Monday, November 3, 2025.
Federal judges in two different districts issued orders Friday that push the administration to consider using contingency reserves to prevent a lapse in November SNAP benefits. The rulings come amid a broader government shutdown that Republican critics blame on Senate Democrats, and they force the administration into a tight timeline to decide what to do next. These decisions do not resolve the underlying funding fight in Congress, but they do inject judicial pressure into an already tense political standoff.
One of the cases was brought by a coalition of 25 states and the District of Columbia and landed before Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts. Plaintiffs asked the court to require the USDA to keep SNAP allotments flowing, arguing that contingency funds exist that could cover benefits. The government countered that making obligations without an appropriation would risk violating the Antideficiency Act and that the contingency pool is intended for future emergencies like disasters.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) is a critical program that, through regular allotments and extraordinary disaster disbursements (the “D-SNAP program”), helps to improve food security for millions of Americans. At its regular level, SNAP requires approximately $8.5 to 9 billion dollars each month. Unfortunately, the ongoing lapse in appropriations has left SNAP with no appropriated funds in its annual allotments account. As a consequence of this never-before-seen circumstance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) was forced to suspend upcoming November benefits.
In their proposed order, Plaintiffs appear to ask the Court to order USDA to unsuspend allotments and let the system run with full benefits amounts (i.e., deposit full amounts on beneficiaries’ SNAP cards) no matter the absence of funds for such benefits. But that is no option at all. That would be a blatant violation of the Antideficiency Act, a criminal statute that forbids the United States from making such an obligation without an appropriation.
In their brief, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should force USDA to deplete its long-term emergency fund, currently containing around $5.25 billion, to provide SNAP benefits for November. But Congress has not appropriated any SNAP funding for fiscal year 2026. And depletion of the long-term emergency fund would eliminate money for the D-SNAP program over the coming years, a program that provides critical support in the event of natural disasters and other uncontrollable catastrophes. Even assuming USDA had discretion to reallocate these funds, the question of how to allocate limited funds among multiple crucial safety-net programs, when there are insufficient funds, is one that the agency is empowered to make—not a federal court, and certainly not Plaintiffs.
…
All told, Defendants understand that the lack of SNAP funds has created a difficult situation for millions of Americans. But as a matter of both law and practical consequence, it is not a problem that this Court can solve through the remedy that Plaintiffs here seek.
Judge Talwani left the temporary restraining order motion under advisement but ordered the administration to report back by Monday on whether it will authorize at least reduced SNAP benefits for November. She specifically asked whether the USDA would use the contingency funds alone for reduced benefits or combine them with other available funds to restore full benefits. Talwani pointed to the 2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act language that set aside $6 billion “to remain available through September 30, 2026” and said that statutory framing suggests those reserves should be available rather than letting the program halt.
No later than Monday, November 3, 2025, Defendants shall advise the court whether they will authorize at least reduced SNAP benefits for November and, if so, their timeline for determining whether to authorize only reduced SNAP benefits using the Contingency Funds or to authorize full SNAP benefits using both the Contingency Funds and additional available funds.
Across the country in Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. issued a similar directive after a suit brought by cities and nonprofit groups. He ruled from the bench that the program must be funded using at least the contingency funds and asked for an update by Monday. That parallel order increases the pressure on the administration and makes this an issue with multiple courts watching the same question.
In Providence, Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell ruled from the bench in a case filed by cities and nonprofits that the program must be funded using at least the contingency funds, and he asked for an update on progress by Monday.
From a Republican perspective, the sensible fix is obvious and simple: Congress should reopen the government and restore regular appropriations instead of litigating this around the margins. Courts can prod agencies, but they cannot and should not be a substitute for legislators doing their job. The shutdown is a political choice, and when appropriations lapse, the predictable chaos hits programs and people who rely on them.
The administration has not yet announced whether it will appeal either order or how it plans to proceed within the timeline judges set. For now, the orders mean the USDA must decide quickly whether to tap contingency funds and in what amount, while the broader budget fight in Washington remains unresolved. The coming days will show whether the executive branch follows the judges’ instructions or pursues other legal or political avenues.
Add comment