Key takeaways:

• Over two dozen Democratic attorneys general sued to release emergency food aid.
• They argue USDA must tap a $5–6 billion SNAP benefits reserve.
• Without action, 42 million people could lose food help on November 1.
• The court could decide by October 31.
• States warn families and children face hunger if funds stay locked.

More than two dozen Democratic attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the federal government. They want the US Department of Agriculture to use its emergency fund to pay SNAP benefits. Without that money, 42 million people risk losing help next month. The lawsuit asks a Massachusetts court to force the USDA to act by October 31.

How SNAP Benefits Are at Risk After Shutdown

The federal government has been shut down since October 1. SNAP benefits usually get paid on the first of each month. Before the shutdown, families received about $8 billion in SNAP benefits every month. Meanwhile, a contingency fund holds roughly $5–6 billion. The USDA said last week it cannot tap that fund for regular food aid. It claims that money is for disasters like hurricanes and floods, not for a funding lapse.

Legal Fight over SNAP Benefits

State lawyers from New York, Nevada, Minnesota, North Carolina and other states argue the USDA broke the law. They say federal rules let the department reprogram its emergency reserve to keep SNAP benefits flowing. In addition, they contend the USDA could use Section 32 funds to backfill SNAP, just as it did for another nutrition program. Section 32 money normally supports women, infants and children. Yet, they argue, it remains available and could prevent millions from going hungry.

What Happens Next for SNAP Benefits

The states filed their motion in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They asked the court to rule by October 31. If the judge agrees, USDA must send at least partial payments by November 1. Otherwise, nearly every SNAP beneficiary could see their benefits cut off. As a result, food banks and community groups fear a surge in hunger and hardship.

The Emergency Fund and Other Options

The contingency fund aims to protect families during temporary crises. It sits unused while the shutdown drags on. Moreover, some economists say the USDA could waive certain rules to free more money. A top economist noted that Congress could also bypass the Senate filibuster to pass a short-term fix. However, House leaders have refused to bring a standalone SNAP benefits bill to the floor. They blame Democrats for the funding gap instead.

Political Blame Game

Republican leaders continue to pin the shutdown on Democratic lawmakers. They note that Democrats refused to support a spending plan that would have cut health subsidies for millions. On the other side, Democrats say they only demanded stronger Medicaid funding and longer health aid. Meanwhile, the USDA website published a post accusing Democrats of prioritizing other issues over feeding the hungry. Critics call this misinformation and a cruel attempt to shift public anger.

State Reactions and Voices

North Carolina’s attorney general called the USDA’s stance “an illegal game of shutdown politics.” He said children in his state could suffer without that aid. Nevada’s attorney general described the decision as “deliberate, cruel and extraordinarily harmful.” He shared that he once feared where his next meal would come from. He vowed to fight so no Nevadan feels that fear again. Other state leaders echoed these concerns and stressed the law clearly supports their case.

Economic and Human Impact

SNAP benefits serve as a basic safety net. They help families buy groceries and avoid hunger. Losing that money would push many into food banks or emergency shelters. Community groups warn of lines doubling at soup kitchens and pantries. In addition, local stores that depend on SNAP sales could lose business. Thus, the shutdown’s reach could deepen economic pain in small towns and cities alike.

Possible Outcomes

If the court rules for the states, USDA must tap the emergency fund for SNAP benefits. That could cover at least part of November’s payments. It might also set a legal precedent for future shutdowns. On the other hand, if the court sides with the USDA, benefits could halt until Congress ends the shutdown. Lawmakers would then face more pressure to strike a deal quickly. Either way, millions of Americans and local economies hang in the balance.

Moving Forward

Attorneys general hope the judge will act swiftly. They argue any delay worsens hardship for families. Meanwhile, advocates call on Congress to pass a short-term fix for SNAP benefits. They stress that feeding people should not be a partisan issue. In the end, policymakers will decide whether emergency food aid remains protected during political standoffs.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did states sue the USDA?

State attorneys general believe federal law requires the USDA to use its emergency reserve to fund SNAP benefits during a shutdown. They filed suit to force the agency to release that money.

What is in the SNAP emergency fund?

The fund holds about $5–6 billion. It can cover partial or full monthly SNAP benefits when regular funding lapses.

How could Section 32 funds help?

Section 32 money normally supports other nutrition programs. States argue the USDA could redirect that money to continue SNAP benefits in November.

What happens if the court rules against the states?

If the court sides with the USDA, SNAP benefits could stop on November 1. That may force Congress to pass emergency funding or endure widespread hunger.