Twenty-six states filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Trump administration, seeking to restore food assistance benefits for more than 42 million Americans amid an ongoing government shutdown.
The coalition of states, led by Massachusetts, California, Arizona and Minnesota, alleges the USDA’s decision to suspend November benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program violates federal law and will cause irreparable harm to low-income families, children, seniors and veterans.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts challenges what would be the first interruption of SNAP benefits in the program’s 60-year history. The federal government shutdown began October 1 when Congress failed to pass appropriations for fiscal year 2026.
On October 10, the USDA directed states to withhold benefit issuance files for November, effectively delaying the distribution of approximately $8 billion in monthly food assistance. The agency formally suspended November benefits on October 24, citing insufficient funding.
The states argue the suspension violates the Food and Nutrition Act, which mandates that “assistance under this program shall be furnished to all eligible households” who apply. The complaint also alleges the USDA’s actions are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Central to the lawsuit is the states’ contention that the USDA has access to approximately $6 billion in SNAP-specific contingency reserve funds appropriated by Congress in 2024 and 2025. The states argue these funds remain available through September 30, 2026, and could cover all or a substantial portion of November benefits.
Additionally, the complaint notes that USDA has access to more than $23 billion in so-called “Section 32” funds that could fully cover November SNAP benefits. The agency recently used these funds to temporarily extend the Women, Infants, and Children program through October, but has declined to do so for SNAP.
The lawsuit quotes the USDA’s own September 30 contingency plan, which stated that SNAP “has been provided with multi-year contingency funds” that are “available to fund participant benefits in the event that a lapse occurs in the middle of the fiscal year.”
In an October 24 memorandum, the USDA claimed the contingency funds “are only available to supplement regular monthly benefits” when an appropriation proves insufficient, and that without a current appropriation for regular benefits, the contingency fund cannot be used.
The department also stated the funds are reserved for “contingencies” such as disaster relief, citing Hurricane Melissa as a potential need for the reserves.
On Saturday, the USDA posted a message on its website blaming Senate Democrats for the benefit suspension, stating “the well has run dry” and declaring that “there will be no benefits issued November 01.”
The lawsuit includes attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia, along with governors from Kansas, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. Participating states include California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New Jersey, Washington, Wisconsin, Colorado, Maryland, Oregon, Connecticut, Minnesota, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont and Delaware.
The states are requesting declaratory relief finding the USDA’s actions unlawful, a preliminary and permanent injunction restoring benefits, and a temporary restraining order preventing enforcement of the suspension.
The lawsuit notes that approximately 25 million individuals across the plaintiff states receive SNAP benefits monthly. In California alone, about 5.5 million residents depend on the program, receiving approximately $1.07 billion in monthly benefits. Massachusetts serves 1.1 million people, including 342,000 children and 261,500 elderly individuals.
SNAP recipients average about $187 per month in benefits. More than 62 percent of participants are families with children, while more than 37 percent include elderly or disabled members.
The states argue that suspending benefits will transfer costs to state and local governments as families increasingly rely on emergency services, food pantries and public safety net programs. Food banks, already strained after the USDA cut $500 million in food deliveries earlier this year, face unprecedented demand.
The lawsuit also highlights public health consequences, noting that food insecurity is associated with poor health outcomes in children, including decreased cognitive function, behavioral problems and educational challenges. Low-income adults participating in SNAP incur approximately $1,400 less in medical care costs annually than non-participants.
The suspension will also harm merchants accepting SNAP benefits, including approximately 26,600 retailers in California, 17,000 in New York, 10,600 in Pennsylvania and 9,200 in North Carolina. The National Grocers’ Association estimates SNAP spending drives $1.3 billion in economic output in Illinois alone and supports nearly 18,000 jobs.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office confirmed in a September 2019 report that “USDA may have had some or all of a $3 billion contingency fund available to pay for SNAP benefits” during the 2019 shutdown.
Previous USDA guidance has consistently stated that contingency reserves are available for benefits during funding lapses. A 2021 USDA contingency plan stated that “USDA and OMB have jointly determined that there is Congressional intent that core programs of the nutrition safety net, including [SNAP]… shall continue operations during a lapse in appropriations.”
The current suspension marks a significant departure from this established policy, which the states argue was implemented without adequate explanation or consideration of reliance interests.
