What is the legal process for withholding contingency funds for SNAP and who has authority?

1. What the courts ordered — judges force contingency-fund use

Two federal judges ruled that USDA must use congressionally appropriated contingency funds to keep SNAP running during the shutdown, directing the agency to report plans and deploy funding promptly; the orders gave USDA some leeway on whether to fund November partially or fully but required use of the contingency account as “necessary” ^{[1] [6] [7]}. Rhode Island’s Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. and the Massachusetts court both concluded that refusing to use available contingency funding was likely unlawful and compelled immediate action and reporting back to the court ^{[1] [2]}.

2. How much money is in the contingency and what it covers

Public filings and reporting put the contingency reserve in the ballpark of $4.6 billion remaining to $6 billion total (with $3 billion carried from FY2024 and $3 billion from FY2025), enough to cover roughly half of a month’s SNAP benefits but not the full monthly costs, which are estimated between $8.5 billion and $9 billion ^{[4] [5] [3]}. USDA officials told courts that depleting contingency funds would leave no cushion for new applicants, disaster assistance, or administrative needs ^[5].

3. Who has authority to withhold or spend contingency funds

USDA, which administers SNAP, is the executive agency that controls program disbursements and had initially told states it would not tap contingency funds; that internal authority was then constrained by federal judges’ orders compelling use of the reserves ^{[8] [2]}. Courts have shown they can direct the executive branch to use congressionally appropriated reserves when plaintiffs (state attorneys general and governors) argue the administration’s interpretation unlawfully halts statutorily funded benefits ^{[1] [9]}.

4. Administration’s legal and operational defenses

The administration argued it was constrained by law and operational hurdles, saying contingency funds had limited legally permitted uses and that shifting funds (including transfers already used for WIC) raised legal questions and operational burdens; it appealed the orders and described reallocation as potentially harming other nutrition programs ^{[10] [11]}. Administration filings said guidance and partial payments were all it could do given the available funds and system constraints, and warned reallocating more could be “arbitrary and capricious” absent proper legal footing ^{[11] [10]}.

5. How courts and states responded to those defenses

Judges rejected aspects of the administration’s legal rationale, noting prior USDA guidance and precedents showing contingency funds may be available for program operations and criticizing selective transfers (for example, to WIC) as undercutting the administration’s position ^{[4] [11]}. State coalitions led by attorneys general argued successfully that Congress had appropriated contingency reserves for precisely such funding gaps and the courts ordered USDA to either use the contingency or identify other lawful sources to cover shortfalls ^{[9] [1]}.

6. Practical impact: partial payments, timing and logistics

Even after court orders, USDA’s practical decisions and states’ processing needs meant payments were delayed or partial: the agency initially said it would fund 50% of maximum benefits, later revised guidance to 65% in some filings, and warned that loading EBT cards and recalculating allotments could take weeks for states to execute ^{[12] [11] [13]}. Courts recognized these operational realities while still directing the government to act promptly ^{[2] [6]}.

7. Competing narratives and political context

Advocates and organizations like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities insisted the administration was legally required to use contingency reserves and criticized the decision not to in October 2025, arguing congressional intent and prior USDA practice support using the reserve for benefits ^{[8] [4]}. The administration and some officials framed the issue as a congressional responsibility to appropriate more funding and warned of legal limits and harms from reallocations ^{[11] [10]}. Both frames appear in filings and public statements cited in court records ^{[1] [11]}.

8. Limits of available reporting and unanswered legal questions

Available sources document court orders, filings, and agency statements about contingency amounts and usage, but do not provide a full legal opinion record here detailing statutory text or all counterarguments; they also leave open how long courts will allow judicial compulsion versus deferring to Congress, and how future transfers or administrative actions will be evaluated ^{[1] [5] [3]}. For statutory interpretation beyond these reports, available sources do not mention the complete legislative history or the precise statutory language judges relied upon in every opinion ^{[4] [11]}.

Bottom line: Federal judges compelled USDA to use SNAP contingency reserves during the 2025 shutdown, forcing the agency to deploy billions that covered part—but initially not all—of November’s benefits; the dispute centers on competing legal readings of contingency fund authority, operational constraints, and political pressure to have Congress restore full appropriations ^{[1] [5] [3]}.