A coalition of 25 states and the District of Columbia has launched a landmark legal challenge against the US Department of Agriculture, seeking to block the impending suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for over 42 million Americans. This unprecedented move, which would mark the first lapse in the program’s 60-year history, is attributed to the ongoing government shutdown, but states argue the USDA is illegally withholding billions in available contingency funds, threatening widespread food insecurity for vulnerable populations nationwide.
The federal government’s crucial Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a lifeline for over 42 million Americans, faces an unprecedented threat as a coalition of 25 states and the District of Columbia has filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). This legal action, initiated on Tuesday, October 28, 2025, seeks to block the USDA’s decision to suspend November payments for SNAP, also widely known as food stamps, a move that would mark the first lapse in the program’s 60-year history.
The lawsuit directly challenges the USDA’s claim that the “well has run dry” for SNAP benefits due to the ongoing government shutdown, which commenced on October 1. State leaders, primarily Democrats, argue that the agency is illegally withholding billions in available contingency funds, a decision they contend violates federal law and places millions of vulnerable families at risk of severe food insecurity.
The Heart of the Matter: Legal Arguments and Federal Obligations
At the core of the legal challenge is the assertion that the USDA’s decision directly contravenes the Food and Nutrition Act. This federal law explicitly states that “assistance under this program shall be furnished to all eligible households.” New York Attorney General Letitia James, a prominent voice in the coalition, emphasized this point, stating, “Millions of Americans are about to go hungry because the federal government has chosen to withhold food assistance it is legally obligated to provide.”
The lawsuit also cites the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that the axing of benefits is “arbitrary and capricious.” Legal experts have echoed these concerns. Chris Swartz, senior ethics counsel at Democracy Defenders Fund, described the withholding of emergency funds as “illegal, immoral, and cruel.” Furthermore, the group’s chief counsel, Virginia Canter, highlighted that “Congress created the SNAP contingency fund precisely to prevent hunger during funding lapses,” asserting that the USDA Secretary “has both the authority and the legal obligation to act.”
The coalition specifically criticized the USDA for not utilizing $6 billion in contingency funds designed to sustain SNAP operations during such funding gaps. In a pre-emptive letter, James and 22 other attorneys general had already urged Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to deploy these funds. However, the Trump administration explicitly refused, declaring the funds were “not legally available” and citing unforeseen events like Hurricane Melissa as reasons to reserve them for disaster areas.
This stance by the administration appears to contradict earlier internal guidance. A now-deleted shutdown plan prepared by the USDA earlier in the year explicitly stated the department’s legal obligation to continue issuing SNAP benefits during a shutdown, as reported by The Hill (The Hill). This inconsistency forms a significant point of contention in the legal battle.
A Lifeline Under Threat: The Human Cost of SNAP Suspension
The immediate consequence of suspending SNAP benefits is a projected hunger crisis affecting over 42 million low-income Americans. This figure includes nearly 60% who are children and seniors, along with more than a million veterans who depend on the program. The average monthly benefit of $187 per person, often distributed to individuals with incomes at or below the poverty level, represents about $6 per day for grocery staples. For many, these benefits are the primary means of ensuring consistent access to food.
The lawsuit highlights the severe health implications of this suspension, including increased food insecurity, hunger, and malnutrition. These conditions are linked to numerous negative health outcomes in children, such as decreased cognitive function, poor concentration, fatigue, depression, and behavioral problems. The impact on families extends beyond food, threatening overall well-being and stability.
Political Gridlock and Diverging Paths in Congress
The crisis unfolds against a backdrop of deep political division. The USDA, in its notice regarding the benefit suspension, directly blamed congressional Democrats for prolonging the government shutdown and, consequently, the lack of funding for SNAP. “At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 1. We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats,” a USDA spokesperson stated.
Within the Republican ranks, there is a visible split on how to address the impending lapse. While Senate Majority Leader John Thune argued that the most effective way to fund the program is for Democrats to vote to end the shutdown, other Republicans have sought alternative solutions. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins and Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) are among those who signed on to a standalone bill to keep SNAP running, with plans to push it for a vote this week, as reported by Politico (Politico). Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) maintained that funding could be restored quickly by reopening the government.
The Ripple Effect: States and Food Banks Brace for Impact
The burden of the federal suspension is expected to fall heavily on state and local governments, as well as community organizations. The lawsuit predicts that the loss of SNAP 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.”
States are already preparing for the fallout. In New York alone, approximately 3 million people rely on SNAP, including nearly a million children and over 600,000 older adults. Several states, including California, New York, and Virginia, have announced emergency funding and declarations to mitigate the immediate impact. Many states have also urged residents to identify local food banks and stock up on goods to prepare for the month ahead. Food banks across the country, already operating on tight resources, are bracing for a massive surge in demand.
Looking Ahead: The Fight for Food Security
The lawsuit, filed in Boston federal court, seeks a temporary restraining order to compel the USDA to release the contingency funds for November SNAP benefits. A hearing for the lawsuit is set for October 30, a mere two days before the scheduled suspension, underscoring the urgency of the situation. This legal battle represents a critical moment for the future of federal food assistance in the United States, challenging the executive branch’s interpretation of its legal obligations during government shutdowns and its responsibility to protect the nation’s most vulnerable citizens.
