Judge questions Trump administration plan to suspend SNAP benefits for millions

BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Boston on Thursday appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s argument that SNAP benefits could be suspended for the first time in the food aid program’s history because of a government shutdown.

During a hearing on a request by 25 Democratic-led states to keep the funding flowing, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani told lawyers that if the government can’t cover the cost, there is a process that must be followed rather than just suspending all benefits. “The steps include finding a fair way to reduce benefits,” said Talwani, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama to the court.

He watches: Johnson says House GOP is ‘fed up’ with shutdown in press conference

Talwani said she expects to issue a ruling later Thursday and appears to be leaning toward asking the government to put billions of dollars in emergency funds for SNAP. She said this is her interpretation of what Congress means when the agency runs out of funding.

“If you don’t have money, you have to tighten your belt,” she said in court. “You’re not going to make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game somewhere.”

Talwani acknowledged that even requesting emergency funds to pay for SNAP may still be painful for some SNAP recipients because it could mean they get less money and the money they do receive may be delayed. “We are dealing with the reality that absent you winning 100%, the benefits will not exist on November 1,” she told plaintiffs.

The hearing came two days before the USDA plans to freeze payments for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program because it said it could not continue funding it because of the shutdown.

Other lawsuits have been filed over the program’s suspension, including one filed Thursday in Rhode Island by a coalition of eight cities and community, business and union organizations.

Read more: Food banks are preparing to surge as SNAP aid may be paused under the government shutdown

SNAP, which costs about $8 billion a month, serves about 1 in 8 Americans and is a key part of the nation’s social safety net. It was reported in October that it would fall victim to the November 1 shutdown, sending states, food banks and SNAP recipients scrambling to figure out how to secure food. Some states have said they will spend their own money to continue replicating the program.

President Donald Trump’s administration said it was not allowed to use an emergency fund of about $5 billion for the program, reversing a USDA plan before the shutdown that said the money would be tapped to keep SNAP running. Democratic-led states argued that emergency funds not only could not be used, but should be used. They also said a separate fund of about $23 billion could be tapped.

Although the states asked for funding to continue only in their jurisdictions, the judge noted that any ruling would apply nationwide, saying it would not be fair to treat recipients differently depending on which state they live in. The ruling, which will be applied everywhere, could challenge the intentions of the US Supreme Court, which has restricted the use of injunctions nationwide, although it has not banned them.

Much of the hearings centered around what Congress intends to do when the agency runs out of money for the program. Talwani disputed the Trump administration’s argument that suspending benefits is the best option, saying that using emergency funds to obtain benefits, although reduced, makes a lot of sense.

“It’s hard for me to understand that this isn’t an emergency, when there’s no money and so many people need their SNAP benefits,” she said.

Federal government lawyers argued that distributing the full benefits would violate a law that prohibits the government from paying for programs without appropriations from Congress.

In court papers, the government said partial payments would require complex recalculations of benefits that could take weeks.

The plaintiffs argued in their lawsuit that failure to maintain SNAP funding would harm public health, make it harder for children to learn in school, increase government health care expenditures and harm retailers who rely on SNAP payments.

To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a family of four cannot have its net income exceed the federal poverty line, which is about $31,000 per year. Last year, SNAP provided assistance to 41 million people, nearly two-thirds of whom were families with children, according to the lawsuit.

Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, New Jersey.