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: What statutory authorities allow a President or USDA to suspend SNAP issuance and have courts upheld those suspensions?
Executive Summary
Federal courts in multiple districts have blocked the Trump administration’s attempts to suspend SNAP issuance, ordering the USDA to continue benefits or use contingency funding while litigation proceeds. Courts grounded those orders in the Administrative Procedure Act and found outright suspension unlawful, even as the administration disputes whether contingency funds or other appropriations can lawfully cover shortfalls [1] [2] [3].
1. What advocates, courts, and the administration actually claimed — the competing headlines
Advocates and several federal judges framed the suspension of SNAP as causing “irreparable harm” and therefore unlawful, prompting orders that the USDA must continue distributing benefits and may use contingency funds to do so [1] [2]. The administration, including Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, asserted the contingency fund lacks an underlying appropriation for November benefits and argued it could not lawfully be used to cover the gap, framing the pause as a funding mechanics issue rather than a policy choice [4]. A separate set of expert commentaries emphasized that existing contingency reserves amount to several billion dollars and that the agency may have authority to transfer or tap additional funds to bridge an $8 billion gap, though they stressed legal and procedural limits on such transfers [5].
2. What statutes and authorities are in play — read the short list
The litigation and policy debate centers on three statutory buckets: the Food and Nutrition Act that authorizes SNAP, the USDA’s internal contingency or reserve fund for SNAP disbursements, and general appropriations law constraining use of federal funds. Courts have invoked the Administrative Procedure Act to evaluate whether the USDA’s suspension was arbitrary or capricious, signaling that agency action must follow statutory rulemaking and reasoned decisionmaking standards [3]. Experts and court opinions repeatedly returned to the question of whether contingency funds constitute a lawful available appropriation for program continuity — a factual and legal determination that directly shapes whether the executive can effect a practical suspension without violating statutory duties [4] [5].
3. Where courts have intervened — recent rulings and their legal reasoning
Multiple federal judges in late October 2025 issued orders requiring continued SNAP distribution or at least consideration of reduced benefits rather than a complete halt. A Rhode Island judge ordered the USDA to disburse benefits using contingency funds, finding that suspension would cause irreparable harm and that the agency could use other funding sources if necessary [1]. A separate judge in Boston declared the blanket suspension unlawful and directed the administration to consider alternatives and report back, reflecting a consensus among those courts that wholesale stoppage fails legal scrutiny under the APA and statutory obligations [2] [1]. These rulings did not rest solely on a single statutory clause but on the intersection of appropriations law and administrative law principles.
4. Administration’s counterarguments — legal mechanics and claimed limits
The USDA and the Agriculture Secretary argued that the contingency fund cannot cover November benefits because there is no underlying appropriation to replenish or authorize that spending for the period at issue, framing the question as one of statutory authorization rather than discretion to continue benefits [4]. The administration characterized use of contingency reserves in this context as legally suspect and pushed back against court orders that it claimed exceeded its funding authority. Courts, by contrast, found the administration’s action to suspend benefits without adequate legal justification to be arbitrary and contradictory to statutory duties, ordering alternative funding routes be used pending further litigation [1] [3].
5. Experts, funding realities, and practical limits on suspension authority
Legal and budget experts pointed to a SNAP contingency fund balance estimated between $5 and $6 billion and noted mechanisms exist to transfer or reallocate funds, which could, in theory, cover gaps or be expanded to meet program needs; however, they cautioned about statutory and procedural constraints on sweeping transfers and the political implications of such moves [5]. Courts ordering the continuation of benefits emphasized practical harms to recipients and the necessity of avoiding abrupt interruption. That legal posture reflects a judicial willingness to prioritize immediate relief for beneficiaries where statutory interpretation and administrative procedure allow, subject to later appellate review [3] [2].
6. The wider implications — precedent, pressure, and what to watch next
These decisions create a near-term judicial check on executive capacity to suspend SNAP through administrative action or funding maneuvers without clear statutory backing, establishing case-specific precedent that suspension will face high scrutiny under the APA and appropriations rules [2] [1]. The rulings also force the political branches and the USDA to confront funding mechanics: whether Congress must act, whether contingency or transfer authorities suffice, and how courts will balance procedural requirements against urgent human needs. Expect appeals and further litigation that will test the limits of agency flexibility and the judiciary’s role in enforcing program continuity for federally funded benefit programs [1] [5] [6].