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 is being done on the SNAP funding?
Executive Summary
A sequence of federal court orders in late October and early November 2025 has compelled the Biden administration’s successor to keep SNAP payments flowing during a government shutdown by tapping contingency and other emergency funds, while Congress remains deadlocked over a full-year funding solution. Federal judges in multiple districts directed the administration to use available contingency mechanisms to provide at least partial November payments and, in at least one ruling, to fully restore benefits by a short court-imposed deadline, producing immediate judicial relief for millions even as political and administrative disputes over legal authority and long-term fixes continue [1] [2] [3].
1. Court Intervention Forces Emergency SNAP Payments — What the Rulings Require and When
Federal judges in at least two separate cases ordered the administration to use contingency and emergency funds to prevent a cutoff of SNAP benefits for tens of millions during the shutdown. One Rhode Island judge required the administration to ensure full November payments by November 3 or at least partial payments by November 5, explicitly pointing to congressionally approved contingency funds and the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935 as potential statutory authorities to keep money flowing [3] [4]. Another federal judge issued similar relief, finding that suspending SNAP during the shutdown would cause irreparable harm to roughly 42 million Americans and ordering emergency funding to continue benefits, which prompted the President to instruct government lawyers to seek court guidance on lawful funding mechanisms [1] [2]. These judicial directives operate on a compressed timetable and aim to blunt immediate humanitarian harm while leaving unresolved the broader funding stalemate between the legislative and executive branches [2].
2. Administrative Position and Legal Uncertainty — Agencies Clash Over Contingency Use
The administration’s position on using contingency funds shifted in public statements and filings, creating legal uncertainty that judges sought to resolve. News summaries and legal reporting indicate federal officials originally resisted or questioned whether contingency funds could lawfully cover routine SNAP disbursements, while plaintiffs and some Democratic lawmakers argued those contingency mechanisms were expressly intended for disruptions like a shutdown and must be used to avoid harming vulnerable people [5] [2]. Courts evaluated competing statutory interpretations and historical practice, with at least one ruling treating the contingency fund and statutory authorities as sufficient to permit emergency payments. The result is a temporary judicial endorsement of emergency funding pathways, but the question of whether such use is administratively and politically sustainable for the remainder of the shutdown remains unsettled [5] [2].
3. Scale of the Need — Who Is Affected and Why It Matters Now
The shutdown’s SNAP disruption threatened tens of millions of recipients and had acute state-by-state impacts; reporting highlighted 3.5 million low-income Texans alone—1.7 million of them children—at immediate risk of losing November benefits when automatic payments were halted [6]. SNAP’s recent post-pandemic adjustments, including the end of Emergency Allotments, already left many households with reduced monthly benefits, meaning any interruption exacerbates food insecurity for households that have seen sharp declines in aid since the public health emergency ended [7]. Courts’ emergency orders therefore did more than preserve routine cash flows; they prevented imminent hardship for families with already-shrinking benefits, underscoring why judges framed the matter as a question of imminent, irreparable harm requiring immediate relief [7] [6].
4. Political Responses and Legislative Attempts — Competing Bills and Partisan Stakes
In Congress, Democrats and Republicans introduced rival measures to keep SNAP funded through November, reflecting competing legislative strategies to seize political advantage while also addressing the immediate gap; one Republican-authored Keep SNAP Funded Act gained limited bipartisan support but did not resolve broader funding fights [8]. Democrats emphasized the need for emergency appropriations and criticized any administrative reticence to use contingency funds, while some Republicans framed the dispute as part of broader bargaining over government spending and policy priorities, including expiring subsidies and other domestic programs [5] [8]. That political dynamic left courts and the executive branch to provide stopgap solutions, but such judicial orders do not substitute for a durable budgetary resolution from Congress.
5. The Big Picture — Short-Term Relief, Long-Term Questions Remain
The combined reporting shows the immediate problem has been mitigated by judicial orders requiring emergency use of contingency funds, but long-term certainty depends on Congress resolving appropriations and on clarifying administrative legal authority for emergency fund use during shutdowns [2] [4]. Courts provided statutory and equitable relief to avert an immediate humanitarian crisis, yet the rulings leave open appeals, operational questions about funding logistics, and the political incentives that produced the shutdown in the first place. Stakeholders—states, advocacy groups, and lawmakers—remain focused on securing both the near-term operational payments and a legislative solution that prevents recurring reliance on emergency judicial interventions [3] [8].