A coalition of 25 states and several advocacy groups have filed a major federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and President Donald Trump, accusing them of illegally halting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during the ongoing government shutdown.
Filed in federal court in Massachusetts, the lawsuit argues that the administration’s decision to stop issuing food aid beginning November 1 violates both federal law and the constitutional rights of millions of low-income Americans. The plaintiffs contend that the USDA had sufficient contingency funds — roughly $6 billion — authorized by Congress to maintain SNAP payments during funding lapses, but deliberately chose not to use them.
“Ending food aid in the middle of a political shutdown is unconscionable and unlawful,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the lead plaintiffs. “Millions of Americans — children, seniors, and working families — rely on SNAP to survive. This administration has no right to take that away for political gain.”
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 requires the USDA to distribute benefits to all eligible households, even during temporary funding gaps. Attorneys for the states argue that by withholding payments, the administration violated the act and acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Among the states joining the lawsuit are California, New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and the District of Columbia. All have large SNAP populations that could be affected if benefits are cut off. Collectively, more than 42 million Americans depend on SNAP each month to afford groceries — making the program one of the most vital safety nets in the country.
State officials estimate that without immediate judicial intervention, millions of households could lose access to food assistance within weeks. Food banks across the country have already reported soaring demand, with many preparing emergency distributions in anticipation of a November funding gap.
The USDA defended its decision in a recent memo, claiming that contingency funds are intended for “disaster-related emergencies” and cannot legally be used to sustain regular SNAP operations during a government shutdown. The agency stated that “available balances have been exhausted” and that it is awaiting congressional appropriations.
Critics, however, view the move as politically motivated. “This is not a budget issue — it’s a moral failure,” said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. “The administration has the tools to feed hungry families but is choosing not to use them.”
The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order compelling the USDA to immediately resume SNAP distributions using existing funds. A hearing is expected within the coming days, with potential nationwide implications for federal aid programs during shutdowns.
Legal analysts note that if the plaintiffs succeed, the case could set a historic precedent, limiting presidential authority to suspend social safety programs and reinforcing that essential aid must continue regardless of political stalemates in Washington.
As the government shutdown drags on and the food insecurity crisis deepens, this lawsuit may become a defining battle over the right to food assistance and the boundaries of executive power.
Watch video below :
