A federal judge in Boston ruled Friday that the Trump administration’s planned suspension of food stamp benefits for November is likely unlawful, finding that the Department of Agriculture misinterpreted federal law by claiming it could not access a $6 billion contingency fund appropriated by Congress for precisely this type of emergency.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a 15-page memorandum on Friday that found the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the SNAP suspension is unlawful. However, rather than immediately issuing a full temporary restraining order, Talwani kept that request under advisement and instead gave the administration until November 3, 2025, to report back to the court on whether it will authorize at least reduced SNAP benefits for November and explain its funding timeline. The judge’s decision to hold off on a full restraining order rested on her finding that the government now has different legal options available to it—specifically, the ability to use the contingency funds and discretionary transfers the court clarified must be available—potentially mooting the need for emergency judicial intervention.
Judge Talwani stated that the USDA had rested its suspension on “an erroneous construction of the relevant statutory provisions,” indicating strong skepticism of the government’s legal position while allowing a brief window for the administration to modify its course.
The case involves a fundamental disagreement over whether the Department of Agriculture can suspend all benefits during the government shutdown despite having access to previously appropriated money designated specifically for emergencies. The USDA asserted that a $6 billion contingency fund established in the 2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act could not be used because “the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exists,” claiming the contingency reserve is somehow dependent on the annual appropriation.
Judge Talwani rejected this reasoning entirely, finding it contradicts both statutory language and congressional intent. The statute mandates that assistance “shall be furnished to all eligible households who make application for such participation,” subject only to “the availability of funds appropriated.” Because Congress appropriated the $6 billion contingency fund “to be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations,” Talwani concluded the government is obligated to use it during precisely these circumstances.
The judge emphasized that Congress placed no restrictions in the appropriations act linking contingency funds to annual appropriations. The government’s argument that “there is no available money in the annual program account, therefore no annual program allotments to support using the emergency funds” finds no support in the statutory language and distorts the separation between regular and contingency funding streams.
Talwani also highlighted that the statute itself contemplates reductions in benefits when funding is insufficient, not outright suspensions. Federal law states that “if in any fiscal year the Secretary finds that the requirements of participating States will exceed the appropriation, the Secretary shall direct State agencies to reduce the value of such allotments to be issued to households certified as eligible.” This mandatory reduction language, combined with the availability of contingency funds, means the government cannot simply shut down the program, the judge found.
Several factors strengthened the judge’s conclusion. First, the USDA’s own “Lapse in Funding Plan” dated September 30, 2025—issued just days before the current shutdown—stated explicitly that “Congressional intent is evident that SNAP’s operations should continue since the program has been provided with multi-year contingency funds” and that these funds “are also available to fund participant benefits in the event that a lapse occurs.”
Second, regulations implementing the statute contemplate a detailed step-by-step procedure for reducing benefits when funds are insufficient, including specific reduction calculation percentages, notification requirements, and computer system adjustments. The USDA promulgated these rules in 1981 with the view that when funding is insufficient to provide full benefits, “the agency is required to reduce the value of the benefits issued to those households.”
Third, there has never been a suspension of SNAP benefits in the program’s 60-year history. That a federal agency would attempt to suspend benefits entirely while appropriated funds remain available represents an extraordinary departure from statutory design and historical practice.
The government also argued that Massachusetts and the other plaintiff states lacked standing to sue because they could not show a direct injury to themselves. Talwani rejected this argument, finding that the suspension creates “a substantial risk that SNAP recipients will need to rely on, and potentially overwhelm, existing state resources and services”.
This risk of increased demand on state welfare programs, the judge reasoned, constitutes a concrete fiscal injury to the states themselves—not merely to their residents. While states cannot sue on behalf of their citizens, they can sue to protect themselves from operational disruption and costs when federal action creates cascading effects on state programs.
In declining to immediately grant the full temporary restraining order, Talwani explained that plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm because the government now has different legal options available to it. By clarifying that contingency funds must be used and that additional discretionary funds from Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act can be accessed, the court has given the agency a pathway forward.
Notably, she referenced that the USDA has the authority under 7 U.S.C. § 2257 to discretionarily transfer funds from Section 32 appropriations, which stem from 30% of customs receipts and are frequently used for child nutrition programs. The agency has used this authority recently to transfer funds to the WIC program, suggesting it remains an available tool.
By Monday, November 3, the administration must report to the court whether it will provide either reduced benefits using only the contingency fund or full benefits by supplementing contingency funds with discretionary Section 32 funds. The government did not indicate in court filings what its next move would be
