Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Which federal laws and regulations (e.g., Food and Nutrition Act) govern USDA emergency SNAP actions?
Executive Summary
The core legal authorities governing USDA emergency SNAP actions are the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 — including its contingency reserve and waiver provisions — and disaster statutes and regulations, notably the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act as implemented through FNS guidance. Recent litigation in late October 2025 crystallized a dispute: federal judges ordered use of contingency funds for regular SNAP benefits, finding the plain language and prior agency practice support availability of the reserve, while the Administration asserted it lacked legal authority to tap those funds [1] [2] [3] [4]. Secondary authorities and implementing rules — FNS waiver regulations (Section 17(b) and SNAP waiver frameworks), D‑SNAP guidance, and FNS emergency allotment policies — shape how USDA implements emergency benefit actions in disasters and public health emergencies [5] [6] [7].
1. Why the Contingency Reserve Became the Legal Battleground
The recent judicial orders turned on the Food and Nutrition Act’s contingency reserve language and historical agency practice, with judges concluding the reserve is available to fund regular SNAP benefits in exigent months when appropriations fall short, reversing the Administration’s claim of no authority [1] [2]. The legal fight hinged on statutory text and prior practice: plaintiffs and courts relied on the Act’s plain language and precedents showing the reserve’s use for routine benefit issuance, while the Administration argued a narrow interpretation that would restrict contingency funds to unforeseen emergency spikes or pilot projects, not steady monthly benefits [3] [1]. This contrast raises a consequential statutory-interpretation question about flexibility versus restraint in using contingency funds during funding gaps.
2. What the Food and Nutrition Act Actually Provides and How Courts Read It
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 contains specific funding mechanisms including a contingency reserve that Congress designed to address shortfalls in SNAP appropriations; litigation shows courts read that language to permit the Secretary to reallocate contingency funds for regular benefit issuance when appropriations are insufficient [3] [2]. Courts relied on plain statutory language and the Administration’s own past practice, pointing to instances where the contingency reserve was used to maintain benefits without controversy, a line of authority inconsistent with the Administration’s restrictive position [3] [1]. The judicial rulings thus underscore the Act’s operational design to prevent sudden beneficiary interruptions by allowing contingency usage in months where appropriated funds fall short, making the reserve a practical backstop rather than a narrowly circumscribed experimental fund [2] [3].
3. Waivers and Regulatory Tools USDA Uses in Emergencies
Beyond funding mechanics, USDA wields statutory waiver authority under Section 17(b) of the Food and Nutrition Act and regulatory waiver pathways to alter program rules during emergencies, authorizing measures such as certification flexibility, state administrative waivers, ABAWD time-limit waivers, and retailer or EBT adjustments [5] [6]. The Food and Nutrition Service maintains a public SNAP Waiver Database documenting approved waivers and the types of relief states have received, from food restriction waivers to administrative streamlining, which illustrates how regulatory tools complement funding authorities to sustain access during disasters [5] [8]. These waivers are structured to be temporary and targeted, reflecting statutory allowance for administrative flexibility while still operating within the broader legal framework of the Act and FNS regulations [6].
4. Disaster SNAP (D‑SNAP) and the Stafford Act: When Different Law Applies
In declared disasters, USDA operates Disaster SNAP (D‑SNAP) under guidance that references both the Food and Nutrition Act and the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, with FNS guidance detailing eligibility, application procedures, and benefit issuance tailored to disaster-impacted populations [4] [7]. D‑SNAP is a distinct operational regime designed for short-term disaster relief, where federal disaster declarations and interagency coordination trigger different administrative pathways and funding mechanisms than routine SNAP benefit months; FNS maintains specific operational guidance to implement D‑SNAP effectively after disasters [4]. The dual statutory structure means emergency SNAP actions can arise from either appropriation-contingency mechanisms or disaster-specific frameworks, depending on whether the emergency is a funding gap or a declared disaster event [7] [4].
5. Competing Narratives, Institutional Roles, and What’s Omitted
Two competing narratives emerged: courts and litigants emphasize statutory text and agency precedent to justify contingency-fund use for regular benefits, while the Administration stressed a constrained reading of authority and budgetary limits — a position that, if accepted, would prioritize fiscal restraint over immediate benefit continuity [1] [2] [3]. What is often omitted from public discussion is the operational detail: how quickly FNS can reprogram funds, the administrative steps states must take to implement waivers, and the interplay between appropriations law and program operations during multi-month shortfalls [5] [6] [7]. The litigation and guidance together signal that law, precedent, and administrative capability—not just policy preference—determine whether and how USDA can act in future emergencies.